MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2652038182 · doi:10.1111/ocr.12180

Mouse models for the study of cranial base growth and anomalies

2017· review· en· W2652038182 on OpenAlexaff
Siddharth R. Vora

Bibliographic record

VenueOrthodontics and Craniofacial Research · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCraniofacial Disorders and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCranial vaultCraniofacialBiologyPosterior cranial fossaSkullAnatomyNeuroscienceGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The cranial base is a central and integral component of the cranioskeleton, yet little is known about its growth. Despite the dissimilarities between human and murine cranioskeletal form, mouse models are proving instrumental in studying craniofacial growth. The objectives of this review are to summarize recent findings from numerous mouse models that display growth defects in one or more cranial base synchondroses, with accompanying changes in chondrocyte cellular zones. Many of these models also display altered growth of the cranial vault and/or the facial region. FGFR, PTHrP, Ihh, BMP and Wnt/β-catenin, as well as components of primary cilia, are the major genes and signalling pathways identified in cranial base synchondroses. Together, these models are helping to uncover specific genetic influences and signalling pathways operational at the cranial base synchondroses. Many of these genes are in common with those of importance in the cranial vault and the facial skeleton, emphasizing the molecular integration of growth between the cranial base and other cranial regions. Selected models are also being utilized in testing therapeutic agents to correct defective craniofacial and cranial base growth.

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.988
Threshold uncertainty score0.958

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.279
GPT teacher head0.464
Teacher spread0.185 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations19
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOrthodontics and Craniofacial ResearchSame topicCraniofacial Disorders and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207