Anatomical and Radiological Description of the <i>Macaca fascicularis</i> Spine in Comparison with the Human Spine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: This paper describes and displays the spinal radiological anatomy and associated pathology in a Macaca fascicularis and compares it to the spinal anatomy of humans. Animal models are commonly used in research. As compared to Macaca mulatta, the anatomy of M. fascicularis is less well described in the literature. Materials and methods: The authors anatomically reconstructed and reviewed the defleshed spine of a single adult M. fascicularis visually, radiographically, and with high resolution CT. Results: 7 cervical, 12 thoracic, 6 lumbar, 3 sacral, and 16 caudal vertebrae were identified. Similarities in the spine to humans were seen as well as differences such as the beaked anterior arch of C1, the anterior pointed lower lumbar vertebrae, the upward curved transverse processes, and presence of three sacral segments. Degenerative changes were seen at multiple locations similar to humans though most pronounced at T3-4. Conclusions: This paper addresses the normal spinal anatomy and degenerative changes in an adult M. fascicularis and compares it to 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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 teacher head, 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".