MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2912367592 · doi:10.3390/jdb7010004

The Forgotten Skeletogenic Condensations: A Comparison of Early Skeletal Development Amongst Vertebrates

2019· review· en· W2912367592 on OpenAlexafffund
Jennifer L. Giffin, Danielle Gaitor, Tamara A. Franz‐Odendaal

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Developmental Biology · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBone Metabolism and Diseases
Canadian institutionsDalhousie UniversityMount Saint Vincent University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsBiologyVertebrateEvolutionary biologyZebrafishSkeleton (computer programming)AnatomyGeneGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The development of a skeletogenic condensation is perhaps the most critical yet considerably overlooked stage of skeletogenesis. Described in this comprehensive review are the mechanisms that facilitate skeletogenic condensation formation, growth, and maintenance to allow for overt differentiation into a skeletal element. This review discusses the current knowledge of gene regulation and characterization of skeletogenic condensations in the chicken, mouse, zebrafish, and other developmental models. We limited our scope to condensations that give rise to the bones and cartilages of the vertebrate skeleton, with a particular focus on craniofacial and limb bud regions. While many of the skeletogenic processes are similar among vertebrate lineages, differences are apparent in the site and timing of the initial epithelial⁻mesenchymal interactions as well as in whether the condensation has an osteogenic or chondrogenic fate, both within and among species. Further comparative studies are needed to clarify and broaden the existing knowledge of this intricate phenomenon.

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)0.001
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
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.299 · 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

Citations40
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Developmental BiologySame topicBone Metabolism and DiseasesFrench-language works237,207