Detectable effect size and bioassay power of mummichog (Fundulus heteroclitus) and fathead minnow (Pimephales promelas) adult reproductive tests
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although multiple reproductive tests have been developed in small-bodied fish to determine the effects of endocrine-disrupting substances, few direct comparisons have been made among the available tests. Side-by-side reproductive tests with mummichog (Fundulus heteroclitus) and fathead minnow (FHM; Pimephales promelas) were conducted with 0, 3, 10, and 30% effluent from a bleached kraft pulp mill in Saint John, New Brunswick, Canada. Egg production was significantly increased in mummichog exposed to 3% combined mill effluent, but no difference was observed in FHM. No differences were found in whole-body testosterone or estradiol levels in mummichog, and whole-body 11-ketotestosterone levels in males were increased in 3% exposed fish compared to those in 10% effluent. Male FHM exposed to 30% effluent had increased whole-body testosterone levels, and female FHM in 30% effluent had decreased testosterone. No differences in estradiol or11-ketotestosterone were observed in FHM. Relatively limited response occurred in other endpoints. A comparison of the results of the present study to other published studies suggests that current reproductive bioassays are only sensitive for detecting magnitudes of change of greater than 50% and that differences exist in the sensitivities of fish. Future research should address methods of reducing variability within test populations and focus on understanding the comparative responses among species commonly used for endocrine-disrupting substance testing.
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 | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".