MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The relationship between variable SHH signaling and the severity of structural defects in the face and brain

2009· article· en· W2290877958 on OpenAlexaff
Nathan M. Young, Diane Hu, H. Jonathan Chong, Benedikt Hallgrímsson, Wei Liu, Ralph Marcucio

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
Topicdental development and anomalies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCraniofacialPhenotypeBiologyCraniofacial abnormalityEmbryoEmbryonic stem cellGeneGeneticsCell biology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Embryonic shape plays an important role in the etiology of craniofacial birth defects, yet how morphological variation is generated early in development and contributes to disease incidence is poorly understood. Here we propose a model in which there is a predictable relationship between variation in Shh signaling, the underlying cellular and molecular processes that control growth, embryonic craniofacial shape, and the severity of facial defects. To test these predictions, we induced variation in Shh signaling in chick embryos using a neutralizing antibody (5E1), imaged embryos with µCT, and calculated the relationship of craniofacial shape to dosage. Our preliminary results demonstrate a continuous range of phenotypes, with a fully penetrant phenotype at the highest dose of cells and progressively more variable and less severe phenotypes at lower doses. These results confirm that the Shh pathway acts in a predictable manner on the incidence and severity of craniofacial dysmorphology, particularly in the brain and face. Ongoing analyses are focused on linking these results explicitly to variation in gene expression and cell proliferation. Ultimately, understanding how genetic and developmental mechanisms interact to generate phenotypic variation, from healthy to diseased, will enable both the prediction of facial malformations in utero and corrective genetic therapies in human embryos.

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 score0.111
Threshold uncertainty score0.319

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.231 · 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

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe FASEB JournalSame topicdental development and anomaliesFrench-language works237,207