Patterns of Infection by Lungworms, Rhabdias ranae and Haematoloechus spp., in Northern Leopard Frogs: A Relationship between Sex and Parasitism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We examined a population of northern leopard frogs to determine whether sex biases in investment in immunity, previously reported for this host species under controlled exposures to lung nematodes, is predictive of patterns of parasitism in nature. We examined Rhabdias ranae and Haematoloechus spp. infections in 74 breeding adult, 28 non-breeding adult, and 53 juvenile frogs. Contrary to our predictions, R. ranae prevalence and mean abundance were higher in breeding female frogs (prevalence: 39.4%, abundance: 3.05 +/- 0.85) than on breeding males (prevalence: 26.0%, abundance: 1.17 +/- 0.52), although no sex bias was observed among non-breeding adults or juvenile frogs. Female frogs also carried larger R. ranae worms, on average, than did males (females: 6407.38 microm +/- 153.80; males: 5198 microm +/- 131.09), regardless of age or breeding condition. We observed no sex-linked patterns of parasitism by Haematoloechus spp. worms in either adult or juvenile frogs. Alternative hypotheses, such as differences among sexes in the selection of thermal clines for hibernation, may explain the observed female bias in parasitism by nematode lungworms in nature and, thus, need to be considered.
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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".