MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Analyses of the craniofacial skeleton of a zebrafish lens degeneration mutant

2009· article· en· W3174531340 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Tamara A. Franz‐Odendaal

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicConnexins and lens biology
Canadian institutionsMount Saint Vincent University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsDanioZebrafishAnatomySkeleton (computer programming)CraniofacialBiologyLens (geology)SkullCartilageGeneticsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The zebrafish mutant, bumper , is characterized as having a lens defect, which begins at 4dpf. Previous work has shown that in the blind morph of Astyanax mexicanus , which also has a lens defect, the ocular skeleton is affected. The ocular skeleton of sighted Astyanax mexicanus and wildtype Danio rerio consists of two scleral ossicles joined by scleral cartilage. In the blind tetra morph, however, the scleral cartilage is persistent and is not replaced by bone. In this study, homozygous and heterozygous bumper mutants of Danio rerio were analyzed. Whole‐mount analyses show that the ocular skeleton is unaffected in this mutant, unlike in blind tetras. Surprisingly, however, several other regions of the craniofacial skeleton are affected; these include the jaws and skull vault. The significance of these results is discussed with respect to the nature and timing of eye degeneration in the two species analyzed. Funding: NSERC, Canada Grant Funding Source NSERC, Canada

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.256 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2009
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe FASEB JournalSame topicConnexins and lens biologyFrench-language works237,207