Effects of experimental food restriction and body-mass changes on the avian T-cell-mediated immune response
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The T-cell-mediated immune response (CMI) of birds, measured with the phytohaemagglutinin skin test, is in most cases positively correlated with their body mass. This correlation, however, does not imply causality, since high-quality birds may be more immunocompetent as well as heavier at the time of sampling. We assessed this relationship experimentally by measuring the changes in body mass and CMI in individual captive yellow-legged gulls (Larus cachinnans) maintained with food provided ad libitum (control group), with no food (fasting group), or with one-third of their daily food requirements (subfeeding group). We identified a direct, nonlinear relationship between food intake, body mass, and CMI. Before the experiment started, body mass of birds (corrected for size) fed ad libitum did not correlate with their CMI, while a positive correlation was found after food restriction. This suggests that birds may reach a threshold above which increases in food intake and body mass do not enhance CMI. Thereafter, food restriction caused decreases in CMI that were significantly correlated with the percentage of body mass lost by each bird. However, for birds that lost similar proportions of body mass, changes in CMI varied according to food-restriction treatment, the subfeeding group exhibiting a stronger CMI than the fasting group.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".