MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416426557 · doi:10.1016/j.mex.2025.103730

Plating larval zebrafish prior to the day of experimentation has no impact on spontaneous swimming and startle responses

2025· article· en· W4416426557 on OpenAlexafffund
Ethan V. Hagen, Yanbo Zhang, Trevor J. Hamilton

Bibliographic record

VenueMethodsX · 2025
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 CanadaInstitute of Circulatory and Respiratory HealthCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchPaul G. Allen Frontiers Group
KeywordsZebrafishThigmotaxisStartle responseLarvaPrepulse inhibitionMoro reflex

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Behavioural testing in larval zebrafish often involves pipetting the larvae into well plates for individual testing. Transferring larvae into plates the day prior to experimentation can increase efficiency of testing. Furthermore, pharmacological and toxicological studies can require a prolonged dosing period requiring the larvae to be pre-plated into the well plate the day prior to experimentation. Here, we compared the behavioural impact of pre-plating larval zebrafish at 4 days post-fertilization (dpf) to fish transferred at 5 dpf on the day of testing. Motion-tracking software was used to examine locomotion and zone preference, and responses to light, dark, and mechanical startle stimuli. We found no significant differences in distance moved, time spent in the thigmotaxis zone (outside edge of the arena), high mobility, immobility, light startle, dark startle, and mechanical startle responses. This data suggests that pre-plating larval zebrafish one day prior to testing does not have a significant impact on behaviour in a spontaneous swim task, dark startle test, light startle test, or mechanical startle test. Pre-plating larval zebrafish can increase the efficiency of behavioural testing.•Compare plating larvae one day prior to testing to plating day of testing.•Test the behaviour in a spontaneous swimming test, and measure light-, dark-, and mechanical-startle responses.•There were no significant differences in locomotion or startle responses.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.034

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.029
GPT teacher head0.403
Teacher spread0.374 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMethodsXSame topicZebrafish Biomedical Research ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207