ArticlePloS one2025
Assessing the effects of a 660 nm diode laser on crustacean eyes.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Sustainable management of crustacean fisheries requires accurate and timely data for population modelling, but many stocks are data deficient. To address this challenge, a novel device using Class 3R 660 nm diode lasers and Artificial Intelligence algorithms for automated data collection is under development. Whilst the safe use of Class 3R lasers is prescribed for the human eye, equivalent knowledge is required to ensure that lasers of this Class can be used without causing ocular damage to crustaceans. Some countries recognise crustaceans as sentient, thus ocular impacts that could compromise welfare and impair the subsequent survival of sampled specimens could be deemed unacceptable. This study investigates the impact of a prototype laser scanning system on the compound eyes of the white-legged prawn, Litopenaeus vannamei. Histological analysis in a controlled laboratory revealed a correlation between laser exposure and markers of ocular tissue damage, suggesting potential cumulative effects associated with repeated exposure. However, there was indication of pre-existing, underlying baseline alterations in some markers, possibly associated with senescence. Further, observations indicated minimal immediate behavioural effects following single scans, though care is warranted in extrapolating these findings to natural populations and different species under commercial conditions. In an operational context, specimens would only be subjected to a single exposure with a conveyor speed four times faster than that used experimentally, which equates to ~0.05 mW total laser energy. The estimated exposure for a single scan used experimentally was ~0.19 mW. At this level, there is no clear evidence of ocular tissue damage. However, fewer than five repeated exposures at the 6.7 cm/s conveyor speed used experimentally, may result in observable changes in some ocular tissue underscoring the need for cautious protocol development. This research highlights potential biological markers for evaluating photothermal damage in crustacean eyes, which could be used in future studies covering a broader range of commercially significant species.
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.