Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this project was to evaluate the impact of probiotic (Phaeobacter gallaeciensis, X34 strain) treatment on the complete development (from veliger to metamorphosis) of Pecten maximus larvae in the context of a bacterial challenge and in conditions more representative of hatchery practices. To that effect, the present study was divided into two main steps. In the first, we used in vitro analyses (antibiograms and microplate assays) to validate the inhibition abilities of X34 on the growth of four Vibrio pathogen species. During the second step, we added pathogens (Vibrio pectenicida) into rearing tanks after two weeks of pre-treatment with the probiotic and then followed the larval development of Pecten maximus through the monitoring of survival rates, shell lengths and metamorphosis ability. Moreover, antioxidant (catalase and superoxide dismutase) and lipids peroxidation activities were also measured after bacterial challenge in order to evaluate the physiological response of larvae to pathogen exposition. Our results indicated an activation of the two selected antioxidant enzymes after bacterial challenge, but the increase was significantly lower in probiotic treated larvae. At the end of the experiment, the strain X34 treatment prevented a mass mortality event and showed a significant increase in the number of individuals reaching competence, when compared to untreated larvae.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".