MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2741658234 · doi:10.3389/fphys.2017.00529

Endocytosis and Enamel Formation

2017· review· en· W2741658234 on OpenAlexaff
Cong-Dat Pham, Charles E. Smith, Yuanyuan Hu, Jan C.‐C. Hu, James P. Simmer, Yong‐Hee Patricia Chun

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Physiology · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBone and Dental Protein Studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNational Institute of Dental and Craniofacial ResearchNational Center for Advancing Translational SciencesUniversity of Texas Health Science Center at San AntonioNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsAmeloblastEndocytosisEnamel paintAmelogeninCell biologyInternalizationAmelogenesisEnamel organSecretionChemistryMaterials scienceBiologyCellBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Enamel formation requires consecutive stages of development to achieve its characteristic extreme mineral hardness. Mineralization depends on the initial presence then removal of degraded enamel proteins from the matrix via endocytosis. The ameloblast membrane resides at the interface between matrix and cell. Enamel formation is controlled by ameloblasts that produce enamel in stages to build the enamel layer (secretory stage) and to reach final mineralization (maturation stage). Each stage has specific functional requirements for the ameloblasts. Ameloblasts adopt different cell morphologies during each stage. Protein trafficking including the secretion and endocytosis of enamel proteins is a fundamental task in ameloblasts. The sites of internalization of enamel proteins on the ameloblast membrane are specific for every stage. In this review, an overview of endocytosis and trafficking of vesicles in ameloblasts is presented. The pathways for internalization and routing of vesicles are described. Endocytosis is proposed as a mechanism to remove debris of degraded enamel protein and to obtain feedback from the matrix on the status of the maturing enamel.

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)0.000
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.977
Threshold uncertainty score0.616

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
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 head0.079
GPT teacher head0.361
Teacher spread0.282 · 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

Citations28
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in PhysiologySame topicBone and Dental Protein StudiesFrench-language works237,207