Health Monitoring of Laboratory Animals in Breeding and Experimental Units
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The last decades the number of laboratory animals used in experiments was dramatically increased due to biomedical research development, while new needs were revealed. The animals used in experiments should be genetically defined and should have a certain health status. Only healthy animals should be used in experiments. The good health of the lab animals that are goingto be used in experiments and the maintenance of this good health during the whole period (before- during- in the end) of experimentation is of crucial importance. On the other hand, the good health of all animals (and of course lab animals) is always at a risk due to a variety of infections. These infections (clinical or subclinical) can influence the outcome of the experiment. Moreover, clinical disease may not be observed until the animal is stressed (e.g the experiment itself or other endogenous or exogenous factors). Depending upon the exogenous factor or the infectious agent a variety of biological parameters maybe influenced. Microbial infections may also lead to biological material contamination such as: tissue cultures, cell-lines, biological products(sera), while many of these infectious agents are zoonotic. In this case, the risk for the personnel (scientists, animal caretakers, technicians) is great. Not only in most European Countries, but also in the U.S.A., Canada and Japan, Health Monitoring Programs (HMPs) in lab animal facilities are performed. In 1994 and later in 2002 the Federation of European Laboratory Animal Science Associations (FELASA) published recommendations for the health monitoring of rodent and rabbit colonies in breeding and experimental units. In these recommendations a list of viruses, bacteria, mycoplasmas, fungi and parasites that lab animal facilities should be monitored for, is presented. Moreover, recommendations for the sampling frequency, the sample size and the diagnostic methodology are also given. By publishing these Recommendations FELASA aims to the harmonization of HMPs at least between the E.U. countries. Moreover, the need for accredited diagnostic laboratories involved in health monitoring is underlined.
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 | 0.015 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.006 |
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".