MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399060660 · doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2024.05.002

Waves, patterns, bifurcations: A tutorial review on the vertebrate segmentation clock

2024· review· en· W4399060660 on OpenAlexaff
Paul François, Victoria Mochulska

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysics Reports · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Behavior and Reproduction
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityUniversité de MontréalMila - Quebec Artificial Intelligence Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsVertebrateSegmentationStatistical physicsArtificial intelligenceGeneticsBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Proper vertebrae formation relies on a tissue-wide oscillator called the segmentation clock. Individual cellular oscillators in the presomitic mesoderm are modulated by intercellular coupling and external signals, leading to the propagation of oscillatory waves of genetic expression eventually stabilizing into a static pattern. Here, we review 4 decades of biophysical models of this process, starting from the pioneering Clock and Wavefront model by Cooke and Zeeman, and the reaction–diffusion model by Meinhardt. We discuss how modern descriptions followed advances in molecular description and visualization of the process, reviewing phase models, delayed models, systems-level, and finally geometric models. We connect models to high-level aspects of embryonic development from embryonic scaling to wave propagation, up to reconstructed stem cell systems. We provide new analytical calculations and insights into classical and recent models, leading us to propose a geometric description of somitogenesis organized along two primary waves of differentiation.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.003

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 head0.090
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.242 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations13
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysics ReportsSame topicAnimal Behavior and ReproductionFrench-language works237,207