MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2142302333 · doi:10.1139/z03-120

Photoperiod differentially affects energetics of immunity in pregnant and lactating Siberian hamsters (<i>Phodopus sungorus</i>)

2003· article· en· W2142302333 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Deborah L. Drazen, Anjali Trasy, Randy J. Nelson

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Zoology · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicReproductive System and Pregnancy
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersU.S. Public Health ServiceNational Science Foundation
KeywordsLactationBiologyPhodopusPregnancyImmunityReproductionAntibodyInternal medicineImmune systemEndocrinologyphotoperiodismGestationAnimal scienceImmunologyHamsterEcologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Both immune and reproductive (i.e., pregnancy and lactation) functions are energetically demanding processes that fluctuate seasonally. Winter is energetically demanding because energy availability is limited and energy demands are high. The goal of the present study was to assess the trade-off of resources between immunity and reproduction by examining antibody production during pregnancy and lactation, when energy requirements are high. Female Siberian hamsters (Phodopus sungorus) were held in either long or short days, and anti-keyhole limpet hemocyanin antibody production was assessed in pregnant, lactating, or nulliparous animals. Pregnancy and lactation both suppressed humoral immunity (primary antibody production) in long-day Siberian hamsters. However, although antibody production was reduced in short-day females compared with long-day animals, pregnancy and lactation did not reduce antibody body production any further. Interestingly, the size and mass of the litters produced by females in both long and short days did not differ. Taken together, these results suggest that the processes of pregnancy and lactation are costly enough to reduce humoral immunity, and they suggest that immunity may be compromised as a result of energy allocation to these reproductive processes.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.122
Threshold uncertainty score0.983

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.197 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations21
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of ZoologySame topicReproductive System and PregnancyFrench-language works237,207