Meaningful measures of enamel hypoplasia: Prevalence and comparative intensity of developmental stress
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Developmental stress causing enamel thinning is an important topic in primate biology. Because taxa differ in growth rates and enamel thickness, the goal is to provide a new method allowing direct comparison of prevalence and salience of enamel defects among samples. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Casts of ape teeth spanning the Late Pleistocene to Late Miocene from three site areas of increasing seasonality, equator (Sumatra) to 20° (Vietnam) and 25°N latitude (China), were examined for enamel defects among paleo-orangutans (n = 571, 222, respectively) and Lufengpithecus lufengensis (n = 198). Frequency of affected teeth and number of linear enamel hypoplasia were recorded. Defect dimensions were measured with a confocal microscope. Simple prevalence is compared to weighted prevalence (%), calculated by dividing "number of LEH from specific tooth groups" by "specific tooth sample size"; this quantity divided by "tooth-specific years of imbricational enamel formation." Defect dimensions are reduced to a dimensionless index termed "enamel deficit ratio" through dividing "daily enamel deficit" by "daily secretion rate." RESULTS: Weighted prevalence increases to the North, highlighting latitudinal similarities. In contrast, "enamel deficit ratio," designed to express comparative severity of developmental stress among samples, was least in the high latitude sample and differed little between paleo-orangutan samples. DISCUSSION: The actual numbers generated are not as important as efficacy of the proposed methods for other taxa. Developmental stress appears least severe in the high latitude (Lufengpithecus) sample but affects a greater proportion, compared to paleo-orangutans. Regardless of findings, the proposed solutions to improve comparability of disparate samples, yield reasonable results.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".