An arch worth revisiting: a study on the feline humeral supracondylar foramen and its evolutionary significance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The supracondylar foramen with a (seemingly) osseous peripheral arch noticed on the medio-distal feline humeri had remained disputed among anatomists. Some scholars have argued in favor of homology between this foramen and the supracondyloid foramen formed in presence of the ligament of Struthers in humans. Other theories include its presence as a retinaculum holding the median nerve and brachial artery to their anatomical position in a flexed elbow. Unfortunately, these theories lack investigative rigor. The emergence of non-invasive imaging modalities, such as micro-computed tomography, has enabled researchers to inspect the internal anatomy of bones without dismantling them. Thus, a micro-computed tomographic investigation was conducted on three feline (Felis catus) humeri specimens while the internal anatomy of the supracondylar foramina was examined. Unlike the humerus, the thin peripheral arch of the feline supracondylar foramen failed to elicit any osseous trabeculae or foci of calcification. While adhering to the humeral periosteum at its origin, the non-osseous arch, typical of a muscular tendon, attaches into the bony saddle related to the medial humeral epicondyle suggestive of a tendon or aponeurotic extension of a (vestigial) brachial muscle, with the coracobrachialis longus emerging to be the most likely candidate.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".