Proximal phalanges of digit 1 have different identities in the forelimbs and hindlimbs of the mouse
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mice possess hands and feet similar to humans including two phalanges for digit 1 and three phalanges in digits 2 to 5. The phalanges that make up the digits were named by their positions, however, phalanx identities between digits are unconfirmed by genetic evidence. Here we show that the proximal phalanges of digit 1 of the fore- and hindlimbs have different identities compared to the phalanges of digit 2. We found strong signals from mRNA-Seq results that unite the proximal phalanx of forelimb digit 1 with the proximal phalanx of forelimb digit 2, while the proximal phalanx of hindlimb digit 1 groups the middle phalanx of hindlimb digit 2. The same result was obtained when other clustering methods were used, indicating that our results are robust. Our results demonstrate that there are developmental differences among phalanges and that the proximal phalanx identities of digit 1 differ between the fore- and hindlimbs of the mouse.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".