Best practices for non‐lethal blood sampling of fish <i>via</i> the caudal vasculature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Blood sampling through the caudal vasculature is a widely used technique in fish biology for investigating organismal health and physiology. In live fishes, it can provide a quick, easy and relatively non-invasive method for obtaining a blood sample (cf. cannulation and cardiac puncture). Here, a general set of recommendations are provided for optimizing the blood sampling protocol that reflects best practices in animal welfare and sample integrity. This includes selecting appropriate use of anaesthetics for blood sampling as well as restraint techniques for situations where sedation is not used. In addition, ideal sampling environments where the fish can freely ventilate and strategies for minimizing handling time are discussed. This study summarizes the techniques used for extracting blood from the caudal vasculature in live fishes, highlighting the phlebotomy itself, the timing of sampling events and acceptable blood sample volumes. This study further discuss considerations for selecting appropriate physiological metrics when sampling in the caudal region and the potential benefits that this technique provides with respect to long-term biological assessments. Although general guidelines for blood sampling are provided here, it should be recognized that contextual considerations (e.g., taxonomic diversity, legal matters, environmental constraints) may influence the approach to blood sampling. Overall, it can be concluded that when done properly, blood sampling live fishes through the caudal vasculature is quick, efficient and minimally invasive, thus promoting conditions where live release of focal animals is possible.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".