MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Can zebrafish be used as a model to study the neurodevelopmental causes of autism?

2003· review· en· W1525160624 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueGenes Brain & Behavior · 2003
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCongenital heart defects research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of Mental HealthCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsZebrafishAutismNeurodevelopmental disorderNeurosciencePsychologyBiologyDevelopmental psychologyGeneticsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The zebrafish has proven to be an excellent model for analyzing issues of vertebrate development. In this review we ask whether the zebrafish is a viable model for analyzing the neurodevelopmental causes of autism. In developing an answer to this question three topics are considered. First, the general attributes of zebrafish as a model are discussed, including low cost maintenance, rapid life cycle and the multitude of techniques available. These techniques include large-scale genetic screens, targeted loss and gain of function methods, and embryological assays. Second, we consider the conservation of zebrafish and mammalian brain development, structure and function. Third, we discuss the impressive use of zebrafish as a model for human disease, and suggest several strategies by which zebrafish could be used to dissect the genetic basis for autism. We conclude that the zebrafish system could be used to make important contributions to understanding autistic disorders.

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.991
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.097
GPT teacher head0.393
Teacher spread0.296 · 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