ReviewProceedings. Biological sciences2025
A functional framework for a comprehensive study of welfare in fishes.
Review in Proceedings. Biological sciences, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Welfare implications of injuries and deformities in wild fish.Animal welfare (South Mimms, England) · 2026Review
- A functional framework for a comprehensive study of welfare in fishes.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Fish production is expected to grow significantly in the coming years. The welfare of captive animals in increasingly intensive systems has historically raised ethical concerns, suggesting that such intensification in fish production will drive public debate and inform policy discussions. Traditional assessments in fish welfare have relied on physical, physiological and/or behavioural measures of biological dysfunction, offering insights into health and functional integrities, yet these approaches face notable limitations. By contrast, affective-based approaches, which use behavioural measures to assess affective state and are widely employed in welfare science, remain underexplored in fishes. Recent advances, such as judgement bias paradigms, provide reliable tools to measure affective states. These support integrative welfare assessments that combine affective evaluations with measures of health and biological functioning. A multi-level approach ensures a comprehensive and robust evaluation of fish welfare, avoiding reliance on any single type of evidence and enabling the exploration of different facets of the welfare construct. While this work synthesizes existing indicators, its main contribution lies in proposing a functional framework that prioritizes affective state evaluation while systematically integrating and validating complementary metrics. By aligning with contemporary ethical and scientific standards, this approach aims to advance the conceptualization and operationalization of fish welfare.
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.