Sex‐Specific Effects of Handling Time on an Index of Immune Activity in Zebra Finches
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recently, there has been considerable interest in the role of the immune system in shaping life-history evolution, sexual selection strategies, and indexes of individual quality. The most frequently used assay of immune function, particularly in avian field studies, is the phytohemagglunitin (PHA) skin test. PHA is injected subcutaneously into the wing web, and the magnitude of the resultant swelling has traditionally been interpreted as an index of an individual's cell-mediated immunocompetence. The test follows one of two protocols: the traditional two-wing injection protocol, with one wing web injected with PHA and the other with phosphate-buffered saline (PBS), or the simplified one-wing protocol that omits the PBS injection. In this technical comment, we alert researchers to the importance of considering handling time when performing the PHA test. We show that zebra finches (Taeniopygia guttata) subjected to the two-wing protocol had a lower wing-web swelling than individuals injected in one wing. In males, handling time explained over 50% of the variation in an individual's skin swelling response; females were relatively unaffected by handling time. We suggest that caution should be exercised when comparing the magnitude of wing-web swelling across studies in which the alternate protocol was followed. In addition, the recording of handling time, and its inclusion in subsequent statistical analyses, may aid in the detection of subtle differences across treatments.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".