MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Polyploid cells in the mouse ovary

2003· article· en· W2142614939 on OpenAlexaff
Margaret Keighren, Leah P. Macfadyen, Alan S. Hill, C.E. Patek, Evelyn E. Telfer, John D. West

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Anatomy · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReproductive Biology and Fertility
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersUniversity of EdinburghWellcome Trust
KeywordsPolyploidCorpus luteumBiologyOvaryPloidyAndrologyInternal medicineEndocrinologyGeneticsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cell ploidy in the ovarian follicle and corpus luteum was investigated by DNA in situ hybridization to a reiterated, chromosome 3 transgene in mice that were hemizygous for the transgene. This approach was first validated by analysis of mouse kidney, pancreas and liver control tissues, which contain different frequencies of polyploid nuclei. Polyploid nuclei (with multiple hybridization signals) were seen in histological sections of both ovarian follicles and corpora lutea. The frequency of polyploid nuclei in follicles showed no consistent relationship with age (between 6 weeks and 10 months) but polyploid nuclei were significantly more abundant in corpora lutea than follicles (6.3% vs. 2.5%). This implies that production of polyploid cells is more closely associated with differentiation of ovarian follicles into corpora lutea than with the age of the female. Polyploidy tended to be more frequent in corpora lutea of mice that had mated even if they did not become pregnant. This study has highlighted the presence of polyploid cells in the mouse ovarian follicle and corpus luteum and has identified mating as a possible trigger for polyploidy in the corpus luteum. Further work is required to determine the physiological role of polyploid ovarian cells in reproduction.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.163
Threshold uncertainty score0.135

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.272 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of AnatomySame topicReproductive Biology and FertilityFrench-language works237,207