How to measure oxidative stress in an ecological context: methodological and statistical issues
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary 1. Reactive oxygen and nitrogen species can damage biomolecules if these lack sufficient antioxidant protection. Maintaining and up‐regulating antioxidant defenses and repair of the damaged molecules require resources that could potentially be allocated to other functions, including life‐history and signal traits. 2. Identifying the physiological mechanisms causing and counteracting oxidative damage may help to understand evolution of oxidative balance systems from molecular to macroevolutionary levels. This review addresses methodological and statistical problems of measuring and interpreting biomarkers of oxidative stress or damage. 3. A major methodological problem is distinguishing between controlled and uncontrolled processes that can lead either to shifts in dynamic balance of redox potential or cause pathological damage. An ultimate solution to this problem requires establishing links between biomarkers of antioxidant defenses and oxidative damage and components of fitness. 4. Biomarkers of redox balance must correspond to strict technical criteria, most importantly to validated measurement technology. Validation criteria include intrinsic qualities such as specificity, sensitivity, assessment of measurement precision, and knowledge of confounding and modifying factors. 5. The complexity of oxidative balance systems requires that assay choice be informed by statistical analyses incorporating context at biochemical, ecological and evolutionary levels. We review proper application of statistical methods, such as principal components analysis and structural equation modelling, that should help to account for these contexts and isolate the variation of interest across multiple biomarkers simultaneously.
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 | 0.256 | 0.458 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".