MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4323359746 · doi:10.1038/s41598-023-29668-9

Examining behavioural test sensitivity and locomotor proxies of anxiety-like behaviour in zebrafish

2023· article· en· W4323359746 on OpenAlexafffund
Andréa Johnson, Erica Loh, Ryan Verbitsky, Jordan Slessor, Brian C. Franczak, Melike Schalomon, Trevor J. Hamilton

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific Reports · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicZebrafish Biomedical Research Applications
Canadian institutionsWomen and Children’s Health Research InstituteUniversity of AlbertaMacEwan University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsShoaling and schoolingAnxietyZebrafishPsychologyAnxiolyticChlordiazepoxideTest (biology)Developmental psychologyBiologyEcologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study assessed the sensitivity of four anxiety-like behaviour paradigms in zebrafish: the novel tank dive test, shoaling test, light/dark test, and the less common shoal with novel object test. A second goal was to measure the extent to which the main effect measures are related to locomotor behaviours to determine whether swimming velocity and freezing (immobility) are indicative of anxiety-like behaviour. Using the well-established anxiolytic, chlordiazepoxide, we found the novel tank dive to be most sensitive followed by the shoaling test. The light/dark test and shoaling plus novel object test were the least sensitive. A principal component analysis and a correlational analysis also showed the locomotor variables, velocity and immobility, did not predict the anxiety-like behaviours across all behaviour tests.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.262 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations70
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScientific ReportsSame topicZebrafish Biomedical Research ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207