MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6892205426 · doi:10.5167/uzh-24545

Lethal and sublethal toxic effects of a test chemical (ivermectin) on the Yellow Dung Fly Scathophaga stercoraria based on a standardized international ring test

2009· article· en· W6892205426 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen MIND · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicForensic Entomology and Diptera Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBioassayIvermectinToxicityRepeatabilityEcotoxicologyIngestion

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A standardized bioassay using the yellow dung fly, Scathophaga stercoraria L. (Diptera: Scathophagidae), was developed to test the lethal and sublethal toxicity of parasiticide residues in livestock dung. The repeatability of the bioassay was assessed for the parasiticide, ivermectin, in thirteen tests performed in seven laboratories in Germany, the UK, Switzerland and Canada. Test results had an acceptable range of heterogeneity. The calculated concentration at which 50% egg-adult mortality was observed (Effect Concentration (EC50) averaged 20.8 +/- 19.1 (Standard Deviation (SD)) microg ivermectin / kg fresh dung (range: 6.33 - 67.5). Mortality was not observed below an average calculated No Observable Effect Concentration (NOEC) of 8.1 +/- 7.7 microg / kg. However, prolonged developmental time, and in a subset of tests reduced body size, was observed above an average calculated NOEC of 0.8 +/- 0.8 microg / kg. An oviposition choice test revealed further that yellow dung fly females do not discriminate among dung of different ivermectin concentrations. We conclude that the yellow dung fly is suitably sensitive, and the methods sufficiently repeatable, to support use of this standardized bioassay by the international community in the registration of new veterinary pharmaceuticals.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.304
Threshold uncertainty score0.263

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.235 · 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 teacher head, 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
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen MINDSame topicForensic Entomology and Diptera StudiesFrench-language works237,207