MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2990650992 · doi:10.1242/dev.182154

Establishing neuronal diversity in the spinal cord: a time and a place

2019· review· en· W2990650992 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Andreas Sagner, James Briscoe

Bibliographic record

VenueDevelopment · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicDevelopmental Biology and Gene Regulation
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersH2020 European Research CouncilWellcome TrustFrancis Crick InstituteMedical Research Council CanadaCancer Research UKHuman Frontier Science Program
KeywordsBiologyNeuroscienceSpinal cordMorphogenProgenitor cellEmbryonic stem cellZebrafishVertebrateCell typeFloor plateProgenitorAnatomyGeneCellStem cellCell biologyGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The vertebrate spinal cord comprises multiple functionally distinct neuronal cell types arranged in characteristic positions. During development, these different types of neurons differentiate from transcriptionally distinct neural progenitors that are arrayed in discrete domains along the dorsal-ventral and anterior-posterior axes of the embryonic spinal cord. This organization arises in response to morphogen gradients acting upstream of a gene regulatory network, the architecture of which determines the spatial and temporal pattern of gene expression. In recent years, substantial progress has been made in deciphering the regulatory network that underlies the specification of distinct progenitor and neuronal cell identities. In this Review, we outline how distinct neuronal cell identities are established in response to spatial and temporal patterning systems, and outline novel experimental approaches to study the emergence and function of neuronal diversity in the spinal cord.

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)0.000
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
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.003

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.253 · 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

Citations319
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDevelopmentSame topicDevelopmental Biology and Gene RegulationFrench-language works237,207