Major differences in the larval anatomy of the digestive and excretory systems of three Oestridae species revealed by <scp>micro‐CT</scp>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Oestrid flies (Diptera: Oestridae) do not feed during the adult stage, so they depend on an efficient assimilation and storage of nutrients during their parasitic larval stage. We describe the general morphology and provide volumetric data for the digestive and excretory organs of the three larval instars of the nasal bot fly Oestrus ovis L., using micro-computed tomography. The size of the digestive and excretory organs greatly increased across larval instars. In all instars, the two salivary glands were remarkably large and formed a 'glandular band' by coming together, but without lumina uniting, at their posterior ends. The distal region of the anterior Malpighian tubules was greatly enlarged and full of highly radio-opaque concretions. Moreover, the anatomy of O. ovis third-instar larva was compared to that of two species of, respectively, similar and different feeding habits: Cephenemyia stimulator (Clark) and Hypoderma actaeon Brauer. Whereas the general morphology and arrangement of the digestive and excretory systems of C. stimulator was similar to that of O. ovis, some differences were observed in H. actaeon: a swollen anterior region of the midgut, salivary glands shorter and not forming a 'band' and anterior Malpighian tubules narrowly uniform throughout their entire length.
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 | 0.000 | 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".