MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402696071 · doi:10.1016/j.cbpa.2024.111747

Commentary: Best practices for performing olfactory behavioral assays on aquatic animals: A guide for comparative physiologists

2024· review· en· W4402696071 on OpenAlexafffund
Cosima S. Porteus, Elissa Khodikian, Liam R. Tigert, Gary J. Ren, Gwangseok R. Yoon

Bibliographic record

VenueComparative Biochemistry and Physiology Part A Molecular & Integrative Physiology · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicOlfactory and Sensory Function Studies
Canadian institutionsThe Scarborough HospitalUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCentre for Environmental Research in the Anthropocene, University of Toronto Scarborough
KeywordsOlfactory systemNeurosciencePsychologyBiologyCognitive science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As more physiologists start to incorporate animal behavior into their experiments, especially in the olfactory behavior research field, some considerations are often overlooked, partly due to the inherited way that physiological experiments are traditionally designed and performed. Here we highlight some of these subtle but important considerations and make a case for why these might affect the results collected from behavioral assays. Our aim is to provide useful suggestions for increased standardization of methods so they can be more easily replicated among different experiments and laboratories. We have focused on areas that are less likely to be mentioned in the materials and methods section of a manuscript such as starvation, preliminary experiments, appropriate sample sizes and considerations when choosing an odorant for an assay. Additionally, we are strongly cautioning against the use of alarm cue to generate behavioral responses due to its highly unstable chemical properties/potency. Instead, we suggest using pure chemicals (made up of one known molecule) such as amino acids, bile acids, or polyamines that are commercially available and easier to make up in known concentrations. Lastly, we strongly suggest using environmentally relevant concentrations of these odorants. We believe these guidelines will help standardize these assays and improve replication of experiments within and between laboratories. • We provide considerations when performing olfactory behavioral tests. • These include using appropriate samples sizes, pure chemicals as odorants at environmentally relevant concentrations. • Avoid starving animals when testing predator odorants and avoid using alarm cue. • Use appropriate lighting and avoid air exposure of the animal when transferring from exposure tank to the behavioral arena. • These are aimed at increasing reproducibility of results in this research field.

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)0.018
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.081
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.061
Threshold uncertainty score0.093

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0180.081
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0050.009
Scholarly communication0.0050.010
Open science0.0100.005
Research integrity0.0610.073
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.027

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 head0.490
GPT teacher head0.470
Teacher spread0.019 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueComparative Biochemistry and Physiology Part A Molecular & Integrative PhysiologySame topicOlfactory and Sensory Function StudiesFrench-language works237,207