MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2591486444 · doi:10.1177/0883073817690867

Olfactory Development, Part 1: Function, From Fetal Perception to Adult Wine-Tasting

2017· review· en· W2591486444 on OpenAlexaff
Harvey B. Sarnat, Laura Flores‐Sarnat, Xing‐Chang Wei

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Child Neurology · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicOlfactory and Sensory Function Studies
Canadian institutionsAlberta Children's HospitalUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOlfactory systemOlfactory bulbOlfactionVomeronasal organNeuroscienceAnatomyFetusSensory systemVestibular systemOlfactory nerveBiologyMedicineCentral nervous systemPregnancy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Discrimination of odorous molecules in amniotic fluid occur after 30 weeks' gestation; fetuses exhibit differential responses to maternal diet. Olfactory reflexes enable reliable neonatal testing. Olfactory bulbs can be demonstrated reliably by MRI after 30 weeks' gestation, and their hypoplasia or aplasia also documented by late prenatal and postnatal MRI. Olfactory axons project from nasal epithelium to telencephalon before olfactory bulbs form. Fetal olfactory maturation remains incomplete at term for neuronal differentiation, synaptogenesis, myelination, and persistence of the transitory fetal ventricular recess. Immaturity does not signify nonfunction. Olfaction is the only sensory system without thalamic projection because of its own intrinsic thalamic equivalent. Diverse malformations of the olfactory bulb can be diagnosed by clinical examination, imaging, and neuropathology. Some epileptic auras might be primarily generated in the olfactory bulb. Cranial nerve 1 should be tested in all neonates and especially in patients with brain malformations, endocrinopathies, chromosomopathies, and genetic/metabolic diseases.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.277
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.056 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations41
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Child NeurologySame topicOlfactory and Sensory Function StudiesFrench-language works237,207