A fixed‐dose approach to conducting emamectin benzoate tolerance assessments on field‐collected sea lice, <i>Lepeophtheirus salmonis</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In New Brunswick, Canada, the sea louse, Lepeophtheirus salmonis, poses an on-going management challenge to the health and productivity of commercially cultured Atlantic salmon, Salmo salar. While the in-feed medication, emamectin benzoate (SLICE® ; Merck), has been highly effective for many years, evidence of increased tolerance has been observed in the field since late 2008. Although bioassays on motile stages are a common tool to monitor sea lice sensitivity to emamectin benzoate in field-collected sea lice, they require the collection of large numbers of sea lice due to inherent natural variability in the gender and stage response to chemotherapeutants. In addition, sensitive instruments such as EC(50) analysis may be unnecessarily complex to characterize susceptibility subsequent to a significant observed decline in efficacy. This study proposes an adaptation of the traditional, dose-response format bioassay to a fixed-dose method. Analysis of 657 bioassays on preadult and adult stages of sea lice over the period 2008-2011 indicated a population of sea lice in New Brunswick with varying degrees of susceptibility to emamectin benzoate. A seasonal and spatial effect was observed in the robustness of genders and stages of sea lice, which suggest that mixing different genders and stages of lice within a single bioassay may result in pertinent information being overlooked. Poor survival of adult female lice in bioassays, particularly during May/June, indicates it may be prudent to consider excluding this stage from bioassays conducted at certain times of the year. This work demonstrates that fixed-dose bioassays can be a valuable technique in detecting reduced sensitivity in sea lice populations with varying degrees of susceptibility to emamectin benzoate treatments.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".