Potential of Japanese Macaques for Understanding Etiology and Seasonality of Repetitive Linear Enamel Hypoplasia in Nonhuman Primates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Japanese macaques are ideal to advance understanding of a wide-spread pattern of recurrent developmental distress in great apes, preserved as repetitive linear enamel hypoplasia (rLEH). Not only are they numerous, unendangered, and well-studied, but they are distributed from warm-temperate evergreen habitats in southern Japan to cool-temperate habitats in the north, where they are adapted behaviorally and phenotypically to winter cold and seasonal undernutrition. We provide a pilot study to determine if enamel hypoplasia exists in Japanese macaques from the north and, if temporal patterns of enamel hypoplasia are consistent with seasonal cold, undernutrition and/or exposure to secondary plant compounds. High-resolution casts of canine teeth from 15 males obtained from Shimokita Peninsula (latitude 41.3° N) between 2012 and 2014, whose skeletons are curated at the Center for the Evolutionary Origins of Human Behavior, Kyoto University, were imaged by confocal and scanning electron microscopy. Perikymata, the surface expression of regularly deposited imbricational layers of enamel, provide an estimate of time between and within hypoplastic enamel defects. Based on histological sections from five individuals, we determined Retzius periodicity to be 7 days. Evidence for recurrence, duration, and severity of 68 LEH defects was collected from perikymata counts as well as measurements of LEH angle of onset, depth and width. Male canine teeth show four to five recurrent, evenly-spaced enamel defects per crown with a median of 54.8 (range 18-74) perikymata between defects; lasting on average 8.7 (range 1-20) perikymata. These translate into repetitive developmental distress averaging every 1.05 years, lasting 8.7 weeks, less than local winter foraging conditions (100 days). We conclude that linear enamel hypoplasia recurs circ-annually among high-latitude male monkeys from Japan. The triad of cold, hunger and anti-feedants can be differentiated in future study through recourse to provisioned and un-provisioned populations throughout the Japanese archipelago.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".