The role of an embryo’s biological sex in neural tube defects in chick embryos
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Neural tube defects (NTDs) are a huge physical and emotional burden on the affected individuals and their families, as well as an enormous financial burden on the healthcare system.The prevalence of NTDs varies by country and ranges from 1-20 for every 2000 babies born.Failure of neural tube closure results in NTDs, where the brain and/or the spinal region of the baby remains open after the 4 th week of pregnancy.Formation of the neural tube, which is the precursor of the brain and spinal cord, occurs during the 4 th week of human gestation and the first 48 hours of chicken embryo development.In humans and certain experimental mouse models, NTDs are twice as prevalent in females than males.This sex bias is due to the presence of two X chromosomes, as opposed to biological sex or absence of an Y chromosome.Having two (or more) X chromosomes in mammals is associated with X-chromosome inactivation (XCI), a phenomenon that causes epigenetic silencing of one (or more) X chromosomes.It has been proposed that in female cells, XCI competes with the rest of the genome for epigenetic silencing factors and interferes with the process of neural tube closure.Hyperthermia has been associated with NTDs, developmental anomalies, as well as developmental delay in many species, and there is a female excess of NTDs in mouse embryos following maternal exposure to hyperthermia.The goal of our study was to determine if there is a sex difference in the occurrence of NTDs in chickens in response to in ovo hyperthermia, which lacks complete dosage compensation.We were also interested in determining if there is a sex bias in the other developmental anomalies and the rate of development in response to heat treatment.We hypothesized that due to the absence of the complete dosage compensation mechanism in chickens, there would be no sex bias in hyperthermia-induced NTDs in chicken Table of
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".