Quantifying the relationship between cell proliferation and morphology during development of the face
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Morphogenesis requires highly coordinated, complex interactions between cellular processes: proliferation, migration, and apoptosis, along with physical tissue interactions. How these cellular and tissue dynamics drive morphogenesis remains elusive. Three dimensional (3D) microscopic imaging poses great promise, and generates elegant images. However, generating even moderate through-put quantified images is challenging for many reasons. As a result, the association between morphogenesis and cellular processes in 3D developing tissues has not been fully explored. To address this critical gap, we have developed an imaging and image analysis pipeline to enable 3D quantification of cellular dynamics along with 3D morphology for the same individual embryo. Specifically, we focus on how 3D distribution of proliferation relates to morphogenesis during mouse facial development. Our method involves imaging with light-sheet microscopy, automated segmentation of cells and tissues using machine learning-based tools, and quantification of external morphology via geometric morphometrics. Applying this framework, we show that changes in proliferation are tightly correlated to changes in morphology over the course of facial morphogenesis. These analyses illustrate the potential of this pipeline to investigate mechanistic relationships between cellular dynamics and morphogenesis during embryonic development.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".