Scanning electron microscopy of the tongue papillae in the pig (<i>Sus scrofa</i>)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A clear understanding of the role of different papillae in the pig may permit the development of a more palatable diet, thus, better utilizing anatomical structures and morphological characteristics to enhance health and productivity in this domestic species. The study used ten healthy market-size, mixed-breed pigs to properly describe the surface structure of the tongue papillae using standard scanning electron microscopic techniques. Two types of sharp and blunt filiform papillae were identified. Fungiform papillae, located on the lateral side of the tongue, were circular and large with surface taste pores. The majority of oval papillae on the dorsal surface of the tongue contained multidirectional surface grooves and lacked taste pores. The foliate papillae, located principally on the caudal third and lateral part of the tongue, were comprised of four to five leaves and they had additional pseudopapillae. The two vallate papillae, found in the caudal third and dorsum of the tongue, had a well-defined vallum and pseudopapillae on their surface. At the root of the tongue, two types of conical papillae with or without apex were observed. The entire area covered by conical papillae was deeply occupied by lingual tonsils. The lingual tonsils were scattered with varying sized lymph nodules in the propria mucosa of the conical papillae deep to epithelium. Functionally, the filiform and conical papillae appeared to have a mechanical role whereas fungiform, foliate, and vallate papillae apparently perform a gustatory role in the pig. The tonsillar location at the root of the tongue provides an ideal experimental model for immunohistological and immunological studies on the lymphoid tissue in man.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".