MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4311069538 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0268593

Thermal adaptation and fatty acid profiles of bone marrow and muscles in mammals: Implications of a study of caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou)

2022· article· en· W4311069538 on OpenAlexaff
Eugène Morin, Päivi Soppela, P.Y. Chouinard

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAdipose Tissue and Metabolism
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalTrent University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAdaptation (eye)BiologyAppendicular skeletonBone marrowEvolutionary biologyCell biologyZoologyAnatomyImmunologyNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mammals have evolved several physiological mechanisms to cope with changes in ambient temperature. Particularly critical among them is the process of keeping the membrane of cells in a fluid phase to prevent metabolic dysfunction. In this paper, we examine variation in the fatty acid composition of bone marrow and muscle tissues in the cold-adapted caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou) to determine whether there are systematic differences in fatty acid profiles between anatomical regions that could potentially be explained by thermal adaptation as influenced by cell function, including hematopoiesis. Our results indicate that the bone marrow and muscle tissues from the appendicular skeleton are more unsaturated than the same tissues in the axial skeleton, a finding that is consistent with physiological adaptation of the appendicular regions to thermal challenges. Because mechanisms of thermal adaptation appear to be widely shared among terrestrial mammals, we suggest that the same patterns may prevail in other species, possibly including humans.

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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.204 · 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

Citations5
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONE→Same topicAdipose Tissue and Metabolism→French-language works237,207→