MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4318393733 · doi:10.1111/joa.13835

Embryonic and skeletal development of the albino African clawed frog (<i>Xenopus laevis</i>)

2023· article· en· W4318393733 on OpenAlexaff
Zhixin Shan, Shan-Shan Li, Chenghua Yu, Shibin Bai, Junpeng Zhang, Yining Tang, Yutong Wang, David M. Irwin, Jun Li, Zhe Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Anatomy · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAmphibian and Reptile Biology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersLiaoning Revitalization Talents Program
KeywordsXenopusAmphibianBiologyEmbryogenesisAnatomySkeleton (computer programming)African clawed frogEmbryonic stem cellEmbryoZoologyCell biologyEvolutionary biologyEcologyGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The normal stages of embryonic development for wild-type Xenopus laevis were established by Nieuwkoop and Faber in 1956, a milestone in the history of understanding embryonic development. However, this work lacked photographic images and staining for skeleton structures from the corresponding stages. Here, we provide high-quality images of embryonic morphology and skeleton development to facilitate studies on amphibian development. On the basis of the classical work, we selected the albino mutant of X. laevis as the observation material to restudy embryonic development in this species. The lower level of pigmentation makes it easier to interpret histochemical experiments. At 23°C, albino embryos develop at the same rate as wild-type embryos, which can be divided into 66 stages as they develop into adults in about 58 days. We described the complete embryonic development system for X. laevis, supplemented with pictures of limb and skeleton development that are missing from previous studies, and summarized the characteristics and laws of limb and skeleton development. Our study should aid research into the development of X. laevis and the evolution of amphibians.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.276
Threshold uncertainty score0.233

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.220 · 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.

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

Citations3
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of AnatomySame topicAmphibian and Reptile BiologyFrench-language works237,207