MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3095668068 · doi:10.1111/joa.13352

The spatial distribution of focal stacks within the inner enamel layer of mandibular mouse incisors

2020· article· en· W3095668068 on OpenAlexaff
Charles E. Smith, Yuanyuan Hu, Mike Strauss, Jan C.‐C. Hu, James P. Simmer

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Anatomy · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
Topicdental development and anomalies
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNational Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research
KeywordsEnamel paintLayer (electronics)Spatial distributionAmeloblastMandibular lateral incisorDentistryOrthodonticsMaterials scienceMedicineGeologyMolarComposite materialMandibular first molar

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Focal stacks are an alternative spatial arrangement of enamel rods within the inner enamel of mandibular mouse incisors where short rows comprised of 2-45 enamel rods are nestled at the side of much longer rows, both sharing the same rod tilt directed mesially or laterally. The significance of focal stacks to enamel function is unknown, but their high frequency in transverse sections (30% of all rows) suggests that they serve some purpose beyond representing an oddity of enamel development. In this study, we characterized the spatial distribution of focal stacks in random transverse sections relative to different regions of the inner enamel and to different locations across enamel thickness. The curving dentinoenamel junction (DEJ) in transverse sections complicated spatial distribution analyses, and a technique was developed to "unbend" the curving DEJ allowing for more linear quantitative analyses to be carried out. The data indicated that on average there were 36 ± 7 focal stacks located variably within the inner enamel in any given transverse section. Consistent with area distributions, focal stacks were four times more frequent in the lateral region (53%) and twice as frequent in the mesial region (33%) compared to the central region (14%). Focal stacks were equally split by tilt (52% mesial vs. 48% lateral, not significant), but those having a mesial tilt were more frequently encountered in the lateral and central regions (2:1) and those having a lateral tilt were more numerous in the mesial region (1:3). Focal stacks having a mesial tilt were longer on average compared to those having a lateral tilt (7.5 ± 5.6 vs. 5.9 ± 4.0 rods per row, p < 0.01). There was no relationship between the length of a focal stack and its location within the inner enamel. All results were consistent with the notion that focal stacks travel from the DEJ to the outer enamel the same as the longer and decussating companion rows to which they are paired. The spatial distribution of focal stacks within the inner enamel was not spatially random but best fit a null model based on a heterogenous Poisson point process dependent on regional location within the transverse plane of the enamel layer.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.056
Threshold uncertainty score0.148

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.224 · 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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of AnatomySame topicdental development and anomaliesFrench-language works237,207