Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26048239›Full record

ArticleEcotoxicology (London, England)2015

Family-portraits for daphnids: scanning living individuals and populations to measure body length.

Annika Agatz, Monika Hammers-Wirtz, Andre Gergs, Tanja Mayer, Thomas G Preuss

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Ecotoxicology (London, England), 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
3.0field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 30 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Annika AgatzUniversity of York, Heslington, York, UK, annika.agatz@york.ac.uk.
Monika Hammers-Wirtz
Andre Gergs
Tanja Mayer
Thomas G Preuss
Institute for Environmental ResearchRWTH Aachen University · DEUniversity of York · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A method has been developed and tested to determine the body length of living daphnids. The purpose of the method was the simple, accurate, repeatable, quick, and to the living organism, harmless measurement of body length of all individuals in a population to enhance the capability of observing population development over time. Generally, organisms are transferred to a petri dish and temporarily fixed by removing access medium. A picture of the petri dish is taken using an ordinary flatbed scanner. Pictures are manually analysed with purposely developed software. We found no significant impact of the method on either individual performance (growth and reproduction) or population development (abundance and structure) of daphnids in comparison to the previously used method for data gathering (sieving, counting and length measurement of a subsample via microscopy). The disadvantage of our method, an increased demand in time for picture analysis, is negligible compared to the advantages this method has. Data generated with the new method do represent the population structure more accurately than those data generated with the previously used method. Scanning organisms does also allow a retrospective quality control for generated data as pictures can securely be stored. The quality of the pictures is furthermore sufficient to include additional endpoints to the analysis (e.g., number and size of aborts, number and size of eggs in the brood pouch, spine length). Here, we present, test and discuss an alternative approach to automated image analysis for data gathering in single and multiple individual and species experiments.

Indexed as

AnimalsBody SizeDaphniaEcotoxicology

Identifiers

PMID26048239
PMCPMC4515252
OpenAlexW1750498507

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.