MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2910658861 · doi:10.1093/icb/icz001

The Pronephros; a Fresh Perspective

2019· review· en· W2910658861 on OpenAlexaff
Bernadette S. de Bakker, Maurice J.B. van den Hoff, Peter D. Vize, Roelof‐Jan Oostra

Bibliographic record

VenueIntegrative and Comparative Biology · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicUrological Disorders and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersUniversiteit van AmsterdamAmsterdam University Medical CentersLouisiana State University
KeywordsPronephrosPerspective (graphical)BiologyGeologyComputer scienceGeneticsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Contemporary papers and book chapters on nephrology open with the assumption that human kidney development passes through three morphological stages: pronephros, mesonephros, and metanephros. Current knowledge of the human pronephros, however, appears to be based on only a hand full of human specimens. The ongoing use of variations in the definition of a pronephros hampers the interpretation of study results. Because of the increased interest in the anamniote pronephros as a genetic model for kidney organogenesis we aimed to provide an overview of the literature concerning kidney development and to clarify the existence of a pronephros in human embryos. We performed an extensive literature survey regarding vertebrate renal morphology and we investigated histological sections of human embryos between 2 and 8 weeks of development. To facilitate better understanding of the literature about kidney development, a referenced glossary with short definitions was composed. The most striking difference between pronephros versus meso- and metanephros is found in nephron architecture. The pronephros consists exclusively of non-integrated nephrons with external glomeruli, whereas meso- and metanephros are composed of integrated nephrons with internal glomeruli. Animals whose embryos have comparatively little yolk at their disposal and hence have a free-swimming larval stage do develop a pronephros that is dedicated to survival in aquatic environments. Species in which embryos do not have a free-swimming larval stage have embryos that are supplied with a large amount of yolk or that develop within the body of the parent. In those species the pronephros is usually absent, incompletely developed, and apparently functionless. Non-integrated nephrons were not identified in histological sections of human embryos. Therefore, we conclude that a true pronephros is not detectable in human embryos although the most cranial part of the amniote excretory organ is often confusingly referred to as pronephros. The term pronephros should be avoided in amniotes unless all elements for a functional pronephros are undeniably present.

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 score0.984
Threshold uncertainty score0.764

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 studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.215
GPT teacher head0.452
Teacher spread0.238 · 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

Citations22
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIntegrative and Comparative BiologySame topicUrological Disorders and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207