Embryonic and skeletal development of the albino African clawed frog (<i>Xenopus laevis</i>)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".