MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Factors affecting craniofacial development in a mouse model of Crouzon Syndrome

2016· article· en· W4389026681 on OpenAlexaff
Katherine A. Brakora, Christopher J. Percival, Rebecca M. Green, Siew‐Ging Gong, Benedikt Hallgrímsson, Ralph Marcucio

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCraniofacial Disorders and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCrouzon syndromeCraniofacialBiologyHypertelorismCraniosynostosisMissense mutationPhenotypeGenotypeHypoplasiaMorphometricsGeneticsSynostosisGeneAnatomyZoology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Crouzon Syndrome (CS) is characterized by premature fusion of calvarial bones (craniosynostosis) as well facial malformations including midfacial hypoplasia and hypertelorism. The phenotype is variable, even when caused by the same mutation within the same family. The cause(s) of this variability remain unknown. Using a mouse model of CS, caused by a missense mutation in FGF Receptor 2, we investigate the role of age, sex, and parental genotype in the development of the craniofacial phenotype. Specimens were collected at E10.5–13.5, E17.5, P0, and at 12 weeks or more, andgenotyped. Specimens younger than 3 weeks were sexed using PCR for the SRY gene. 2D and 3D geometric morphometrics was used to compare craniofacial size and shape, using surface landmarks for embryos, and bones after birth. Wildtype and heterozygous groups were compared at each age, controlling for all other variables, to create a detailed picture of the ontogenetic progression of the CS phenotype caused by this mutation. Then, specimens were grouped by genotype and tested for differences in size and shape based on sex or parental genotypes. We identify when in development homozygous mutants, heterozygous mutants, and wildtype phenotyeps diverge in size and shape, and to what degree sex and parental genotypes affect the timing, severity, or variability of heterozygous and wildtype phenotypes at each age. Support or Funding Information Supported by NIH‐NIDCR grants F32DE024939 to KB and 2R01DE018234‐05A1 to RM and BH.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.224 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe FASEB JournalSame topicCraniofacial Disorders and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207