MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Cell-mediated immune response affects food intake but not body mass: An experiment with wintering great tits

2004· article· en· W2545258455 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Andrés Barbosa, Eulalia Moreno

Bibliographic record

VenueEcoscience · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Behavior and Reproduction
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImmune systemForagingCaptivityFood intakeBiologyPhysiologyBody mass indexBody weightAnimal scienceZoologyFood scienceImmunologyEcologyEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

:Reduction in body mass is one of the major energetic costs associated with immune challenge. In studies where such findings have been obtained, birds performed their normal activities in a natural environment during the experiments. In such situations food intake after immune challenge was not controlled. Therefore, reduction in body mass could be due to a reduction in foraging activity through difficulties in searching for and finding food. The aim of the present study is to determine whether an immune challenge affects body mass or food intake in wintering great tits maintained in captivity. Ten individuals were kept in an outdoor aviary during the experiments. Cell-mediated immunity was determined by the wing web index using phytohemagglutinin (PHA) injection. Body mass and food intake were measured before and after PHA injection. We found no difference in body mass between pre- and post-PHA injection. However, we found a significant increase in the amount of food intake after PHA injection compared with food intake before injection. Moreover, the magnitude of the immune response, measured by the wing web index, was positively related to the amount of food intake. In conclusion, our results suggest that the immune response to PHA is a costly task for small birds during winter and that this cost is compensated for by the increase in food intake.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.206 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations15
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEcoscienceSame topicAnimal Behavior and ReproductionFrench-language works237,207