Indirect Human Health Risk Assessment of the GloFish® Electric Green®, GloFish® Starfire Red®, GloFish® Sunburst Orange®, and the GloFish® Galactic Purple® Barbs (Puntigrus tetrazona), for use as ornamental aquarium fish in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An indirect human health risk assessment was conducted on four lines of genetically modified Tiger Barbs (Puntigrus tetrazona) known as the GloFish® Electric Green® Barb (GB2011), GloFish® Starfire Red® Barb (RB2015), GloFish® Sunburst Orange® Barb (OB2019), and the GloFish® Galactic Purple® Barb (PB2019) that were notified under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA). GB2011, RB2015, OB2019, and PB2019 are modified lines of diploid, hemizygous or homozygous Tiger Barbs, containing genes encoding for different fluorescent proteins. GB2011, RB2015, OB2019, and PB2019 appear green, red, orange, or purple, respectively, under ambient light (including sunlight). The four lines will be imported from the United States for use as ornamental fish in home aquaria. This risk assessment examined the potential for the four lines to cause harmful effects to humans in Canada relative to wild-type Tiger Barbs as a consequence of environmental exposure including under its intended use in home aquaria. The parental strain, P. tetrazona, has been available as a home aquarium fish since the 1950s without any reported adverse human health effects. There is no evidence to suggest a risk of adverse human health effects for the general Canadian population from use of GB2011, RB2015, OB2019, and PB2019 as ornamental aquarium fish as well as other identified potential uses. As such, there is no expectation that GB2011, RB2015, OB2019, and PB2019 will pose any more risks to human health than wild-type P. tetrazona.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".