Evaluating stress in natural populations of vertebrates: total CORT is not good enough
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary Our goal in this review is to discuss how measures beyond simple quantification of total glucocorticoid levels are needed in comparative studies of stress. We need to measure corticosteroid binding globulin – CBG – and further downstream performance metrics to properly evaluate the significance and impact of stress in wild populations. We briefly cover the current literature, discuss methods that may enable detection of chronic stress and point to directions for future research to continue to clarify this field. CBG may regulate access of hormones to tissues, but disagreement remains as to the functional importance of total vs. free vs. bound hormone in the plasma. Here we focus on recent studies providing solid evidence supporting the free hormone hypothesis. These studies unequivocally indicate that the biologically active fraction consists only of the portion that is free (not total levels in the blood). We also present the ‘reservoir hormone hypothesis’, indicating the relevance of CBG ‐bound hormone in the plasma. The vast majority of physiological studies on stress in natural populations only measure blood corticosterone or its faecal metabolites. However, downstream metrics (e.g. immune function, oxidative stress and body mass changes) can assess the physiological impact of the changes in corticosterone and CBG and ultimately of the adaptiveness of these changes. Here we will discuss some of the most promising factors that can be measured downstream of the plasma and the rationale for their measurement, how to do it, and an introduction to the evidence. Although we draw on biomedical findings for some of this insight, we recognized that findings from a few mammalian laboratory species (primarily rats and mice) may not apply to the vast diversity of vertebrate species from fish to birds. In large measure we are still in the natural history phase of the accumulation of fundamental knowledge in terms of trying to extract general principles in the stress biology of natural populations. Our review outlines what is needed to lay the foundation for these principles.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".