MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Preadipocyte and Adipose Tissue Differentiation in Meat Animals: Influence of Species and Anatomical Location

2014· review· en· W2158995957 on OpenAlexaff
Gary Hausman, Urmila Basu, Shengjuan Wei, Dorothy B. Hausman, Michael V. Dodson

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnual Review of Animal Biosciences · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAdipose Tissue and Metabolism
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyAdipose tissueZoologyAnatomyEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Early in porcine adipose tissue development, the stromal-vascular (SV) elements control and dictate the extent of adipogenesis in a depot-dependent manner. The vasculature and collagen matrix differentiate before overt adipocyte differentiation. In the fetal pig, subcutaneous (SQ) layer development is predictive of adipocyte development, as the outer, middle, and inner layers of dorsal SQ adipose tissue develop and maintain layered morphology throughout postnatal growth of SQ adipose tissue. Bovine and ovine fetuses contain brown adipose tissue but SQ white adipose tissue is poorly developed structurally. Fetal adipose tissue differentiation is associated with the precocious expression of several genes encoding secreted factors and key transcription factors like peroxisome proliferator activated receptor (PPAR)γ and CCAAT/-enhancer-binding protein. Identification of adipocyte-associated genes differentially expressed by age, depot, and species in vivo and in vitro has been achieved using single-gene analysis, microarrays, suppressive subtraction hybridization, and next-generation sequencing applications. Gene polymorphisms in PPARγ, cathepsins, and uncoupling protein 3 have been associated with back fat accumulation. Genome scans have mapped several quantitative trait loci (QTL) predictive of adipose tissue-deposition phenotypes in cattle and pigs.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.772
Threshold uncertainty score0.885

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.324 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations50
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnual Review of Animal BiosciencesSame topicAdipose Tissue and MetabolismFrench-language works237,207