MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Morphological characteristics of mule conceptuses during early development

2018· article· en· W2904562482 on OpenAlexaff
Náthia Nathaly Rigoglio, Gustavo de Sá Schiavo Matias, María Angélica Miglino, Andrea Mess, J. Jacob, Lawrence C. Smith

Bibliographic record

VenueAnimal Reproduction · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic and phenotypic traits in livestock
Canadian institutionsCegep de Saint Hyacinthe
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyFetusDonkeyEmbryoConceptusEmbryogenesisHorseAndrologyAnatomyPregnancyPhysiologyMedicineEcologyCell biologyGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hybrids between species are often infertile and extremely rare among mammals. Mules, i.e. crossing between the horse and the donkey, on the other hand are very common in agricultural and leisure practices due to their enhanced post-natal physical characteristics that is believed to occur for outbreeding or hybrid vigor. Since no reports are availableon the effects of hybrid vigor during early development, this study focused on characterizing the intrauterine development of mule conceptuses during critical embryo-to-fetus transition period. Nine embryos and fetuses of early gestation, obtained after artificial insemination and transcervical flushing, were evaluated by means of gross anatomy and histology and compared to data available for the equine. We found that some events, such as C-shape turning, apearence of branchial archs, limb and tail buds, formation of primary and secondary brain vesicles, heart compartmentalization, and development of somites, occurred slightly earlier in the mule. Nonetheless, no major differences were observed in other developmental features, suggesting similarities between the mule and the horse development. In conclusion, these data suggest that the effect of hybrid vigor is present during intrauterine development in the mule, at least with regard to its maternal parent.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.522
Threshold uncertainty score0.301

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.228 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations1
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnimal ReproductionSame topicGenetic and phenotypic traits in livestockFrench-language works237,207