Palatal segment contributions to midfacial anterior-posterior growth
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Following facial prominence fusion, anterior-posterior (A-P) elongation of the palate is a critical aspect of palatogenesis and integrated midfacial elongation. Reciprocal epithelial-mesenchymal interactions drive secondary palate elongation and periodic signaling center formation within the rugae growth zone (RGZ). However, the relationship between RGZ dynamics and the morphogenetic behavior of underlying palatal bone mesenchymal precursors has remained enigmatic. As part of a broader multifaceted study of these interactions within C57BL/6J mice, we completed a morphometrics analysis of 1) ontogenetic shape change of the palate and midface between embryonic day (E) 11.0 and E15.0 and 2) embryonic and postnatal longitudinal growth and proportional contributions of primary palate, anterior secondary palate, and posterior secondary palate to overall hard palate length. Our overall shape analysis identifed the major ontogenetic trends in palatal and midfacial shape change between E11.0 and E15.0, a critical early period of facial development. Our ontogenetic analysis of palatal segment lengths indicated that the three major palatal segments significantly elongated during the same embryonic period, between E15 and postnatal day (P) 1, and between P1 and adulthood. The anterior secondary palate contributed proportionally more than the primary palate or posterior secondary palate to overall embryonic and perinatal hard palate elongation. However, the primary palate contributed proportionally more to longitudinal hard palate growth between P1 and adult samples. These results indicate the major importance of anterior secondary palate growth during the earliest period of midfacial outgrowth. Changes to the rate or timing of anterior secondary palate elongation, potentially by modifying associated RGZ gene expression dynamics, may contribute to intraspecies or interspecies differences in upper jaw morphology. However, postnatal growth processes, including the significant postnatal growth of the primary palate derived premaxillary bone, also contribute to variation in adult upper jaw morphology.
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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".