MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407353550 · doi:10.1038/s41467-024-54591-6

Functional tissue units in the Human Reference Atlas

2025· article· en· W4407353550 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Supriya Bidanta, Katy Börner, Bruce W. Herr, Ellen M. Quardokus, Marcell Nagy, Katherine S. Gustilo, Rachel Bajema, Roland Molontay, Griffin M. Weber

Bibliographic record

VenueNature Communications · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
Topic3D Printing in Biomedical Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCommon FundNIH Office of the DirectorNational Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney DiseasesNational Cancer InstituteNational Institutes of HealthCanadian Institute for Advanced Research
KeywordsAtlas (anatomy)Computer scienceOntologyMetadataHuman bodyConstruct (python library)Function (biology)Information retrievalComputational biologyAnatomyBiologyWorld Wide WebArtificial intelligenceProgramming languageEvolutionary biology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Functional tissue units form the basic building blocks of organs and are important for understanding and modeling the healthy physiological function of the organ and changes that occur during disease states. In this comprehensive catalog of 22 anatomically based, nested functional tissue units from 10 healthy human organs, we document the definition, physical dimensions, blood vasculature connections, and cellular composition. All anatomy terms are mapped to the multi-species Uber-anatomy Ontology (Uberon) and cells are mapped to Cell Ontology to support computational access via standardized metadata. The catalog includes datasets, illustrations, and a large printable poster illustrating how the blood vasculature connects the 22 functional tissue units in 10 organs. All data and code are freely available. The work is part of an ongoing international effort to construct a Human Reference Atlas of the 37 trillion cells that make up the healthy human body.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.910
Threshold uncertainty score0.761

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.068
GPT teacher head0.373
Teacher spread0.305 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations18
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNature CommunicationsSame topic3D Printing in Biomedical ResearchFrench-language works237,207