Report of Workshop on Euthanasia for Zebrafish—A Matter of Welfare and Science
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The increasing importance of zebrafish as a biomedical model organism is reflected by the steadily growing number of publications and laboratories working with this species. Regulatory recommendations for euthanasia as issued in Directive 2010/63/EU are, however, based on experience with fish species used for food production and do not take the small size and specific physiology of zebrafish into account. Consequently, the currently recommended methods of euthanasia in the Directive 2010/63/EU are either not applicable or may interfere with research goals. An international workshop was held in Karlsruhe, Germany, March 9, 2017, to discuss and propose alternative methods for euthanasia of zebrafish. The aim was to identify methods that adequately address the physiology of zebrafish and its use as a biomedical research model, follow the principles of the 3Rs (Replacement, Reduction, and Refinement) in animal experimentation and consider animal welfare during anesthesia and euthanasia. The results of the workshop are summarized here in the form of a white paper.
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 | 0.020 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.004 |
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".