MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3013273210 · doi:10.3920/bm2019.0144

Guidelines for best practice in placebo-controlled experimental studies on probiotics in rodent animal models

2020· article· en· W3013273210 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueBeneficial Microbes · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldVeterinary
TopicAnimal testing and alternatives
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInterpretabilityAnimal testingAnimal modelAnimal speciesRisk analysis (engineering)Animal studyMedicineIntensive care medicineBiotechnologyBiochemical engineeringBiologyComputer scienceSurgeryArtificial intelligenceInternal medicineEngineeringEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the absence of established best practice standards in the probiotic field for reducing the risk of bacterial transfer between experimental groups, we developed protocols and methods to ensure the highest quality and interpretability of results from animal studies, even when performed in non-conventional animal care facilities. We describe easily implementable methods for reducing cross-contamination during animal housing, behavioural testing, and euthanasia, along with highlighting protocols for contamination detection in experimental subjects and laboratory areas using qPCR. In light of the high cross-contamination risks between animals during experiments involving probiotics, constant vigilance in animal care and research protocols is critical to ensure valid and reliable research findings.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.515
Threshold uncertainty score0.965

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.377
GPT teacher head0.475
Teacher spread0.098 · 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