MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Spinal deformity in triploid grass carp ctenopharyngodon idella (Valenciennes)

2011· article· en· W1935620807 on OpenAlexaff
Stephanie G. Grimmett, Heather Chalmers, Jeffrey C. Wolf, Paul R. Bowser

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Fish Diseases · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicZebrafish Biomedical Research Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersNational Cancer InstituteNew York State Department of Environmental ConservationU.S. Department of Health and Human Services
KeywordsGrass carpBiologyHatcheryKyphosisDeformityFish <Actinopterygii>Spinal deformityFisheryAnatomyLordosisCarpRadiographyMedicineSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

From mid-2004 to mid-2005, several grass carp, Ctenophayngodon idella (Valenciennes), showing evidence of spinal deformity were presented to the Aquatic Animal Health Program, Cornell University. The carp were from three separate locations in New York State. The first case involved several fish from a natural body of water in the Catskill Mountain region of south-eastern New York State. The second was a single affected individual from a private pond in the Fingerlakes region of Central New York State. The third was a single individual from the Cold Springs Harbor Fish Hatchery, Cold Springs Harbor, Long Island. All fish were at least 7 years of age. Radiographs and computed tomography (CT) scans revealed the deformities to be of bony origin. The spinal deformities were characterized by variable amounts of kyphosis, scoliosis and rotation. While it is not possible to determine the specific cause(s) of the lesions, we consider a genetic component as a likely contributor to the observed pathology.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.261 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations17
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Fish DiseasesSame topicZebrafish Biomedical Research ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207