The role of biomarkers in the health assessment of aquatic ecosystems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Much progress has been made in abating the impacts on aquatic ecosystems of industrial wastewaters, intensive agriculture, and large urban centres. Nowadays the short term consequence of stress from such sources is less frequently the death and destruction of fish populations or entire communities of organisms. Large scale fish kills are now less common. Scientific attention has shifted to the effects on ecosystems of long term exposures to sublethal stressors. Although use of the term ‘ecosystem health’ is a topic of debate, the metaphor can usefully reflect a state of well being or absence of impaired survival, growth, reproduction, and recruitment problems in an ecosystem's key organisms. The present article explores the use of the physiological and biochemical responses of organisms to stressors, the so-called ‘biomarkers,’ to assess and study the sublethal effects of chemical stressors in fish. Fish were chosen as the organism of example because they are key components of practically all aquatic ecosystems. Most biomarkers can be used as an early warning that fish have been exposed to putative stressors, and can often be used to help identify the stressor(s). Biomarkers, however, tell us little about the eventual ecological outcome of such exposures. Some biomarkers are mechanistically linked to toxic modes of action, and can thus be classed as ‘biomarkers of effect’ at the level of the individual organism. None, however, have been fully validated and calibrated as predictive indicators of adverse ecological effects at either the population or community levels. Biomarkers are valueable as part of a broader strategy for monitoring the effects of stressors on aquatic ecosystems.
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 | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| 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".