A comparative histological study of the osteoderms in the lizards <i>Heloderma suspectum</i> (Squamata: Helodermatidae) and <i>Varanus komodoensis</i> (Squamata: Varanidae)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We describe the histological appearance of the osteoderms (ODs) of Heloderma suspectum and Varanus komodoensis using multiple staining and microscopy techniques to yield information about their morphology and development. Histological analysis showed that the ODs of H. suspectum are composed of three main tissue types, a superficial layer, herein identified as osteodermine, capping a base composed of Sharpey-fibre bone and lamellar bone rich in secondary osteons (Haversian bone tissue). In contrast, ODs in V. komodoensis are composed of a core of woven bone surrounded by parallel-fibred bone without a capping tissue. Thus, in these two species, ODs differ both in terms of their structural composition and in details of their skeletogenesis. The histology of the mineralised tissues observed in these two reptile taxa provides insights into the mechanism of formation of lizard ODs and presents a direct comparison of the histological properties between the ODs of the two species. These data allow greater understanding of the comparative histological appearance of the dermal bones of lizards and highlight their structural diversity.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".