Zebrafish Is a Powerful Tool for Precision Medicine Approaches to Neurological Disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Personalized medicine is currently one of the most promising tools which give hope to patients with no suitable or no available treatment. Patient-specific approaches are particularly needed for common diseases with a broad phenotypic spectrum as well as for rare and yet-undiagnosed disorders. In both cases, there is a need to understand the underlying mechanisms and how to counteract them. Even though, during recent years, we have been observing the blossom of novel therapeutic techniques, there is still a gap to fill between bench and bedside in a patient-specific fashion. In particular, the complexity of genotype-to-phenotype correlations in the context of neurological disorders has dampened the development of successful disease-modifying therapeutics. Animal modeling of human diseases is instrumental in the development of therapies. Currently, zebrafish has emerged as a powerful and convenient model organism for modeling and investigating various neurological disorders. This model has been broadly described as a valuable tool for understanding developmental processes and disease mechanisms, behavioral studies, toxicity, and drug screening. The translatability of findings obtained from zebrafish studies and the broad prospect of human disease modeling paves the way for developing tailored therapeutic strategies. In this review, we will discuss the predictive power of zebrafish in the discovery of novel, precise therapeutic approaches in neurosciences. We will shed light on the advantages and abilities of this in vivo model to develop tailored medicinal strategies. We will also investigate the newest accomplishments and current challenges in the field and future perspectives.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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".