If the skull fits: magnetic resonance imaging and microcomputed tomography for combined analysis of brain and skull phenotypes in the mouse
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The mammalian brain and skull develop concurrently in a coordinated manner, consistently producing a brain and skull that fit tightly together. It is common that abnormalities in one are associated with related abnormalities in the other. However, this is not always the case. A complete characterization of the relationship between brain and skull phenotypes is necessary to understand the mechanisms that cause them to be coordinated or divergent and to provide perspective on the potential diagnostic or prognostic significance of brain and skull phenotypes. We demonstrate the combined use of magnetic resonance imaging and microcomputed tomography for analysis of brain and skull phenotypes in the mouse. Co-registration of brain and skull images allows comparison of the relationship between phenotypes in the brain and those in the skull. We observe a close fit between the brain and skull of two genetic mouse models that both show abnormal brain and skull phenotypes. Application of these three-dimensional image analyses in a broader range of mouse mutants will provide a map of the relationships between brain and skull phenotypes generally and allow characterization of patterns of similarities and differences.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 it