MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Empirical relationships between body tissue composition and bioelectrical impedance of brook trout <i>Salvelinus fontinalis</i> from a Rocky Mountain Stream

2012· article· en· W1994167728 on OpenAlexaffabout
J. B. Rasmussen, A. N. Krimmer, Andrew J. Paul, Alice Hontela

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Fish Biology · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBody Composition Measurement Techniques
Canadian institutionsCochraneAlberta Environment and Protected AreasUniversity of Lethbridge
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBioelectrical impedance analysisSalvelinusFontinalisBiologyTroutBody waterComposition (language)EcologyFish <Actinopterygii>FisheryBody weightBody mass indexEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) analysis was carried out in the field on anaesthetized Salvelinus fontinalis electrofished from a mountain stream in Alberta, Canada; the fish were then sacrificed for subsequent analysis of tissue composition. Water content was assessed by comparing wet and dry mass, and total body lipid content was measured by Soxhlet extraction with petroleum ether. A multivariate analysis of body composition and size metric against impedance measurements was carried out, and the main findings were (1) body size and related metrics were strongly related to volumetric impedance measures, as shown in several previous studies, (2) lipid content (%) and water content (%) were both well predicted by regression models whose main predictor was reactance and (3) reactance and resistance measures that were series-based produced excellent predictions of tissue composition, whereas the corresponding parallel-based models were crude. The BIA measurements are quick and easy to conduct and appear to provide excellent predictions of a number of proximate body components, without the need to kill the fish; however, more studies are required to provide improved understanding of possible effects of region, season, life stage and species on measurements.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.136
Threshold uncertainty score0.505

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.292 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations20
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Fish BiologySame topicBody Composition Measurement TechniquesFrench-language works237,207