The efficacy of field techniques for obtaining and storing blood samples from fishes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Prompted by the dramatic increase in the use of blood analyses in fisheries research and monitoring, this study investigated the efficacy of common field techniques for sampling and storing blood from fishes. Three questions were addressed: (1) Do blood samples taken via rapid caudal puncture (the 'grab-and-stab' technique) yield similar results for live v. sacrificed groups of fishes? (2) Do rapidly obtained caudal blood samples accurately represent blood properties of fishes prior to capture? (3) Does storage of whole blood in an ice slurry for a working day (8·5 h) modify the properties of the plasma? It was shown that haematocrit, plasma ions, metabolites, stress hormones and sex hormones of caudal blood samples were statistically similar when taken from live v. recently sacrificed groups of adult coho salmon Oncorhynchus kisutch. Moreover, this study confirmed by using paired blood samples from cannulated O. kisutch that blood acquired through the caudal puncture technique (mean ±s.e. 142 ± 26 s after capture) was representative of fish prior to capture. Long-term (8·5 h) cold storage of sockeye salmon Oncorhynchus nerka whole blood caused significant decreases in plasma potassium and chloride, and a significant increase in plasma glucose. Previous research has suggested that these changes largely result from net movements of ions and molecules between the plasma and erythrocytes, movements that can occur within minutes of storage. Thus, blood samples from fishes should be centrifuged as quickly as practicable in the field for separation of plasma and erythrocytes to prevent potentially misleading data.
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 | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".