Histological and histochemical characteristics of lacrimal glands in beluga whales <i>(Delphinapterus leucas)</i>.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this study was to describe the histological and histochemical characteristics of the lacrimal glands of beluga whales. The study was carried out on the formalin-fixed ocular globes from 96 carcasses of beluga whales found stranded in the St. Lawrence estuary in Quebec, Canada. Hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) stained slides from the eyes of each whale were examined for lacrimal glands. Histological description was done with H&E and Masson Trichrome (MT) stains. Period Acid-Schiff (PAS), Alcian blue (AB) pH 1.0 and 2.5, and High Iron Diamine (HID) stains were used for histochemical characterization of glycoproteins. Thirteen ocular samples from animals ranging from neonate to 48 y included sections of lacrimal glands. The H&E stain revealed a tubuloalveolar gland architecture, separated into lobules by dense connective tissue. Each lobule contained a mixture of acini and tubules with ductules. Small and large acini were composed of low and tall columnar cells, respectively. Acinar cells contained basophilic cytoplasmic granules. The ductules were lined with a bi-layered cuboidal-to-squamous epithelium. The MT stain highlighted the connective tissue separating ductules and acini. Large acini were positive for PAS and some small acini had patchy uptake. Positive staining for AB pH 1.0 and 2.5 was mainly seen in tall columnar cells as compared to small acini that had faint to no stain uptake. High Iron Diamine stain revealed 90% staining of all acinar cells, with 10% exhibiting a mixed blue-black tinge. It was concluded that the lacrimal glands of beluga whales have similar histological and histochemical findings to those of artiodactyla and carnivora orders.
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".