MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

RESPONSE OF THE AMPHIBIAN TADPOLE (XENOPUS LAEVIS) TO ATRAZINE DURING SEXUAL DIFFERENTIATION OF THE TESTIS

2002· article· en· W4231559076 on OpenAlexaff
Luz E. Tavera-Mendoza, Sylvia M. Ruby, Pauline Brousseau, Michel Fournier, Daniel G. Cyr, David J. Marcogliese

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental Toxicology and Chemistry · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEnvironmental Toxicology and Ecotoxicology
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsXenopusAtrazineBiologyAmphibianTadpole (physics)GonadGerm cellAndrologyReproductionSexual differentiationAfrican clawed frogZoologyInternal medicineEndocrinologyToxicologyPesticideEcologyGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Xenopus laevis tadpoles were exposed for 48 h during sexual differentiation to atrazine at 21 microg/L under static laboratory conditions at 21+/-0.5 degrees C. After this exposure period, tadpoles were fixed and the kidney-gonad complex was microdissected. Quantitative histological analysis of the gonad revealed a 57% reduction in testicular volume among atrazine-exposed tadpoles. In addition, primary spermatogonial cell nests that represent germ cells for the life of the organism were reduced by 70%. Nursing cells, which provide nutritive support for the developing germ cells, had declined by 74%. Testicular resorption was observed among 70% and aplasia or failure of full development of the testis was recorded in 10% of the atrazine-exposed tadpoles. Because cell nests represent the pool of primordial germ cells for the reproductive life of the organism, the combined reduction in spermatogonial cell nests and nursing cells suggest that a pulse exposure to 21 microg/L of atrazine during sexual differentiation could significantly reduce reproduction during the reproductive life of these animals.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
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 score0.190
Threshold uncertainty score0.993

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 studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.182
Teacher spread0.176 · 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.

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

Citations144
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironmental Toxicology and ChemistrySame topicEnvironmental Toxicology and EcotoxicologyFrench-language works237,207