The Integration of Sociality, Monoamines, and Stress Neuroendocrinology in Fish Models: Applications in the Neurosciences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Animal-focused research has been crucial for scientific advancement however, in this matter, rodents are still taking a starring role. Coming out from merely being supportive of evidence found in rodents, the use of fish models has slowly taken a more central role and expanded its overall contributions in areas such as social sciences, evolution, physiology, and recently in translational medical research. In neurosciences, zebrafish has been widely adopted, contributing to our understanding of the genetic control of brain processes, and the effects of pharmacological manipulations. However, discussion continues regarding the paradox of function versus structure, when fish and mammals are compared, and on the potentially evolutionarily conserved nature of behaviour across fish species. From the behavioural stand point we explorted aversive/stress and social behaviour in selected fish models, and refer to the extensive contributions of stress and monoaminergic systems. We suggest that, in spite of marked neuroanatomical differences between fish and mammals, stress and sociality are conserved at the behavioural and molecular levels. We also suggest that stress and sociality are mediated by monoamines in predictable and non-trivial ways, and that monoamines could “bridge” the relationship between stress and social behaviour. To reconcile the level of divergence with the level of similarity, neuroanatomy, pharmacology, behavioural analysis, and ecology studies conducted in the laboratory and in nature need to add to each other and enhance our understanding of fish behaviour and ultimately how this all may translate to better model systems for translational studies.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".