Discriminating Sex in Zebrafish ( <i>Danio rerio</i> ) Using Geometric Morphometrics
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Zebrafish (Danio rerio) adults are viewed as sexually dimorphic. However, current approaches to sex discrimination rely mainly on subjective assessment of color patterns and body structures. Here, we explore how geometric morphometrics allow for quantitative sex discrimination based on overall body geometry of adult zebrafish (aged 12-24 months). Ten homologous landmarks were placed on the left lateral view of adult zebrafish and transformed through Procrustes superimposition before being analyzed with canonical variate analysis. We compared two models to distinguish between sexes. The first model consisted of landmarks that included the abdominal region and the second model did not. Males and females clearly diverged along a single canonical variate, and jackknife testing reinforced the strength of the sorting algorithm with 100% correct assignment of sex for both models. Analysis of body geometry demonstrated that males have a longer caudal peduncle, a more streamlined ventral region, and slightly more inferior placement of eyes than females. Based on these results we developed a logistic regression equation using the ratio of ventral caudal peduncle length to standard length to provide researchers a reliable and objective method for sex discrimination in zebrafish.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it