MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Changes in semicircular canal morphology in response to selective breeding for high voluntary wheel running

2012· article· en· W955836049 on OpenAlexaffabout
Heidi Schutz, Heather A. Jamniczky, Benedikt Hallgrímsson, Theodore Garland

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetics and Physical Performance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCentroidCraniaAnatomySemicircular canalCurvatureBiologyMathematicsGeometryVestibular system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Variation in semicircular canal (SCC) radius of curvature (R) and shape show correlations with locomotor agility among species of mammals. We used laboratory mice from 4 replicate lines bred for high voluntary wheel running (HR) and 4 non‐selected control lines (C) to examine responses in the SCC to 8 weeks of access to wheels and 21 generations of selection. Mouse crania were μCT scanned at 21 μm resolution and linear measurements, 3D landmarks, and centroid sizes of the SCC were taken. Linear measures were used to calculate R for all three canals and their mean, whereas landmarks were used to generate multivariate descriptors of 3D canal shape. HR mice weighed less than C and wheel access reduced body mass for both groups. ANCOVA showed that body mass was a significant positive predictor of R. However, when controlling for body mass we found no differences in R between HR and C, no effect of wheel access, and no interaction. SCC shape was also significantly correlated with body mass; controlling for body mass or centroid size, there were significant differences in SCC shape between HR and C mice. These results demonstrate that semicircular canal morphology is responsive to selection for locomotor activity and that canal shape may be more sensitive than canal size. Funding for this project provided by a U.C. Riverside Chancellor's Postdoctoral Fellowship to HS, Canadian Foundation for Innovation to BH and IOS‐1121273 to TG.

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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.215
Threshold uncertainty score0.330

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.238 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe FASEB JournalSame topicGenetics and Physical PerformanceFrench-language works237,207