MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3009257656 · doi:10.1242/jeb.213942

Relationships between the peak hypoxic ventilatory response and critical O2 tension in larval and adult zebrafish (<i>Danio rerio</i>)

2020· article· en· W3009257656 on OpenAlexafffund
Milica Mandic, Yihang K. Pan, Kathleen M. Gilmour, Steve F. Perry

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Experimental Biology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPhysiological and biochemical adaptations
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsDanioRespirationZebrafishHypoxic ventilatory responseHypoxia (environmental)BiologyVentilation (architecture)Respiratory systemOxygenAnatomyChemistryBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Fish increase ventilation during hypoxia, a reflex termed the hypoxic ventilatory response (HVR). The HVR is an effective mechanism to increase O2 uptake, but at a high metabolic cost. Therefore, when hypoxia becomes severe enough, ventilation declines, as its benefit is diminished. The water oxygen partial pressure (PwO2) at which this decline occurs is expected to be near the critical PwO2 (Pcrit), the PwO2 at which O2 consumption begins to decline. Our results indicate that in zebrafish (Danio rerio), the relationship between peak HVR and Pcrit was dependent on developmental stage. Peak ventilation occurred at PwO2’s higher than Pcrit in larvae, but at a PwO2 significantly lower than Pcrit in adults. Larval zebrafish use cutaneous respiration to a greater extent than branchial respiration and the cost of sustaining the HVR may outweigh the benefit, whereas adult zebrafish, which rely on branchial respiration, may benefit from using HVR at PwO2 below Pcrit.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.237 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Experimental BiologySame topicPhysiological and biochemical adaptationsFrench-language works237,207