MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Effects of cadmium chloride on the development of rainbow trout <i>Oncorhynchus mykiss</i> early life stages

2008· article· en· W1969489630 on OpenAlexaff
Helena Maria Lizardo-Daudt, Christopher J. Kennedy

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Fish Biology · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicReproductive biology and impacts on aquatic species
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHatchingBiologyRainbow troutJuvenileCadmiumLarvaAnimal scienceCadmium chlorideHuman fertilizationJuvenile fishEndocrinologyInternal medicineFisheryEcologyFish <Actinopterygii>AnatomyChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The sub‐chronic (28–56 days) effects of exposure to low concentrations of cadmium (Cd; 0·05, 0·25, 0·50 and 2·50 μg l−1) shortly following fertilization on embryos, larvae and juvenile rainbow trout Oncorhynchus mykiss were examined. Premature hatching occurred at lower concentrations (0·05 and 0·25 μg l−1 Cd), however, delayed hatching was seen in the 2·50 μg l−1 Cd group, with >90% of hatching occurring on the last day of the hatching period. Larval growth was negatively affected by Cd exposure in a concentration‐dependent manner. Larvae exposed to 2·50 μg l−1 Cd were 13·9 ± 0·8% shorter in total length (LT) and weighed 22·4 ± 3·5% (mean ±s.e.) less than controls at the end of the exposure period. Plasma sex steroid concentrations (oestradiol in juvenile females and 11‐ketotestosterone in juvenile males) were elevated (four‐ to 10‐fold over controls) in exposed fish in both males and females, following 28 days of exposure to 0·05, 0·25 and 0·50 μg l−1 Cd, respectively. These results suggest that environmentally realistic concentrations (in the μg l−1 range) of Cd can affect the development of O. mykiss impacting embryos, larvae and juvenile fish.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.233 · 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 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

Citations29
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Fish BiologySame topicReproductive biology and impacts on aquatic speciesFrench-language works237,207