MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3164040217 · doi:10.1093/femsre/fuab030

Fishing for the right probiotic: host–microbe interactions at the interface of effective aquaculture strategies

2021· review· en· W3164040217 on OpenAlexafffund
Luana Langlois, Nadeem Akhtar, Kam Chiu Tam, Brian Dixon, Gregor Reid

Bibliographic record

VenueFEMS Microbiology Reviews · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicProbiotics and Fermented Foods
Canadian institutionsSt Joseph's Health CareUniversity of WaterlooLawson Health Research InstituteWestern University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsBiologyProbioticAquacultureHost (biology)FishingMicrobiologyEcologyFish <Actinopterygii>FisheryBacteriaGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Effective aquaculture management strategies are paramount to global food security. Growing demands stimulate the intensification of production and create the need for practices that are both economically viable and environmentally sustainable. Importantly, pathogenic microbes continue to be detrimental to fish growth and survival. In terms of host health, the intestinal mucosa and its associated consortium of microbes have a critical role in modulating fitness and present an attractive opportunity to promote health at this interface. In light of this, the administration of probiotic microorganisms is being considered as a means to restore and sustain health in fish. Current evidence suggests that certain probiotic strains might be able to augment immunity, enhance growth rate and protect against infection in salmonids, the most economically important family of farmed finfish. This review affirms the relevance of host-microbe interactions in salmonids in light of emerging evidence, with an emphasis on intestinal health. In addition, the current understanding of the mode of action of probiotics in salmonid fish is discussed, along with delivery systems that can effectively carry the living microbes.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.928
Threshold uncertainty score0.582

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.298 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations40
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFEMS Microbiology ReviewsSame topicProbiotics and Fermented FoodsFrench-language works237,207