History and sensitivity comparison of two standard whole-sediment toxicity tests with crustaceans: the amphipod
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The review first details the development of the test procedures with Hyalella azteca which historically emerged as one of the recommended test species for whole-sediment assays and its gradual standardization and endorsement by national and international organizations. The sensitivity and precision of the H. azteca test for application on chemicals and on real world sediments is discussed. The review subsequently addresses the development of the whole sediment microbiotest with the ostracod crustacean Heterocypris incongruens with larvae of this test species hatched from dormant eggs (cysts), rendering this assay stock culture/maintenance free. The application of the 6-day ostracod microbiotest on sediments in Canada and in Belgium is discussed, as well as its endorsement by the ISO subsequent to an extensive international interlaboratory ring test. The sensitivity of the amphipod and ostracod tests is compared by data from studies in which both assays were applied in parallel. A comparison of more than 1000 ostracod/amphipod data pairs of a 12-year river sediment monitoring study in Flanders/Belgium confirmed that both whole-sediment assays have a similar sensitivity and that the 6-day ostracod microbiotest is a valuable and cost-effective alternative to the 10−14 day amphipod test for evaluation of the toxic hazard of polluted sediments.
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 | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".