Harmonization of criteria and terminology in fetal rat skeletal evaluations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A survey of laboratories in North American and Europe that routinely conduct fetal skeletal examinations was performed with the purpose of (1) understanding current terminology used for classifying skeletal findings in developmental toxicity (DT) studies and (2) understanding the criteria used to identify relatively common findings that sufficiently deviate from normal. The goal was to promote terminology harmonization and improve interlaboratory consistency in the criteria used to identify developmental anomalies. METHODS: The survey, designed based on terminology for developmental anomalies recommended by an international collaboration (Makris et al., Congenital Anomalies, 2009;49(3):123-246), was conducted by a subgroup (authors of this publication) of the Royal Society of Biology's International Register of Fetal Morphologists (IRFM). RESULTS: Individual and summarized anonymized responses are provided here. The authors, who are expert fetal morphologists with experience performing fetal examinations, reviewed the responses and generated recommendations on preferred terminology and criteria for determining when morphological variations deviate from normal and warrant recording of the findings for skeletal observations in Sprague Dawley (SD) fetal rats. The objective of these recommendations is to complement Makris et al. (Congenital Anomalies, 2009;49(3):123-246). CONCLUSION: The broad application will improve interlaboratory harmonization of recording fetal skeleton findings in developmental toxicity studies intended for regulatory submissions, including SEND (Standard for Exchange of Nonclinical Data).
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 | 0.246 | 0.208 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".