ArticleComparative biochemistry and physiology. Toxicology & pharmacology : CBP2015
Workshop report: The medaka model for comparative assessment of human disease mechanisms.
Article in Comparative biochemistry and physiology. Toxicology & pharmacology : CBP, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Renal Trichodinosis in the Japanese Rice Fish, Oryzias latipes: First Report and Phylogenetic Classification.Journal of fish diseases · 2026Article
- Reproductive toxicity of DDT in the Japanese medaka fish model: Revisiting the impacts of DDT+ on female reproductive health.Chemosphere · 2024Review
- Extracellular vesicles from human bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells repair organ damage caused by cadmium poisoning in a medaka model.Physiological reports · 2019Article
- In Vivo Analysis of Embryo Development and Behavioral Response of Medaka Fish under Static Magnetic Field Exposures.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2019Article
- Workshop report: Cryopreservation of aquatic biomedical models.Cryobiology · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Results of recent studies showing the utility of medaka as a model of various human disease states were presented at the 7th Aquatic Models of Human Disease Conference (December 13-18, 2014, Austin, TX). This conference brought together many of the most highly regarded national and international scientists that employ the medaka model in their investigations. To take advantage of this opportunity, a cohort of established medaka researchers were asked to stay an extra day and represent the medaka scientific community in a workshop entitled "The Medaka Model for Comparative Assessment of Human Disease Mechanisms." The central purpose of this medaka workshop was to assess current use and project the future resource needs of the American medaka research community. The workshop sought to spur discussions of issues that would promote more informative comparative disease model studies. Finally, workshop attendees met together to propose, discuss, and agree on recommendations regarding the most effective research resources needed to enable US scientists to perform experiments leading to impacting experimental results that directly translate to human disease. Consistent with this central purpose, the workshop was divided into two sessions of invited speakers having expertise and experience in the session topics. The workshop hosted 20 scientific participants (Appendices 1 and 2), and of these, nine scientists presented formal talks. Here, we present a summary report stemming from workshop presentations and subsequent round table discussions and forward recommendations from this group that we believe represent views of the overall medaka research community.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.