A review on the evolution of methods for intestinal in vitro organ culture and its application in veterinary science
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
organ culture (IVOC). A robust compilation of all available methods is lacking in the literature, making it difficult to choose a method that corresponds to the study's demands. In this review, readers can assess the most available methods, allowing them to evaluate which is more suitable for their purposes and requirements. A simplified view of culturing intestinal explants is presented, highlighting the approachability of IVOC. Relevant findings from diverse veterinarian studies, where explants played a major role, as well as the technique used in each, are described to illustrate its applications. Finally, the strengths and limitations of the innovative intestinal IVOC methods are discussed. This review provides a collection of methods for intestinal explant culture and their possible applications in veterinary research. In this way, it aims to broaden access to IVOC techniques and aid decision-making regarding the best suited for a study's purposes.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 it