MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3091133051 · doi:10.1111/jcpe.13371

Formation and regeneration of a Wnt‐responsive junctional epithelium

2020· article· en· W3091133051 on OpenAlexaff
Xue Yuan, Jinlong Chen, L.A. Van Brunt, J.A. Grauer, Quanchen Xu, Xibo Pei, Liao Wang, Yuan Zhao, Jill A. Helms

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal Of Clinical Periodontology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicWnt/β-catenin signaling in development and cancer
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
FundersNational Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research
KeywordsWnt signaling pathwayJunctional epitheliumGingivectomyEpitheliumBiologyPopulationRegeneration (biology)Cell biologyMedicineGeneticsDentistrySignal transduction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIM: To identify the molecular mechanisms mediating the persistent defensive functions of the self-renewing junctional epithelium (JE). MATERIALS AND METHODS: , were employed, along with three clinically relevant experimental scenarios where the function of the JE is disrupted: after tooth extraction, after a partial gingivectomy, and after a complete circumferential gingivectomy. RESULTS: Using transgenic Wnt reporter strains of mice, we established the JE is a Wnt-responsive epithelium beginning at the time of its formation and that it maintains this status into adulthood. After tooth extraction, progeny of the initial Wnt-responsive JE population directly contributed to healing and ultimately adopted an oral epithelium (OE) phenotype. In the traditional partial gingivectomy model, the JE completely regenerated and did so via progeny of the original Wnt-responsive population. However, following circumferential gingivectomy, the OE was incapable of re-establishing a functional JE. CONCLUSIONS: A Wnt-responsive niche at the interface between tooth and oral epithelia is required for a functional JE.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.380
Threshold uncertainty score0.231

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.286 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations20
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal Of Clinical PeriodontologySame topicWnt/β-catenin signaling in development and cancerFrench-language works237,207