Fluctuating asymmetry, a marker of poor growth quality, is associated with adult male metabolic rate
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Life history theory, a branch of evolutionary theory, predicts the existence of trade-offs in energetic allocation between competing physiological functions. The core metabolic cost of self-maintenance, measured by resting metabolic rate (RMR), represents a large component of human daily energy expenditure. Despite strong selective pressures for energetic frugality and high observed interindividual variation in RMR, the link between RMR and energetic allocation to life-history traits remains understudied in humans. MATERIALS: In a sample of 105 (m = 57, f = 48), we investigated the relationship between adult RMR and investment in growth quality, as measured by fluctuating asymmetry (FA). RESULTS: Measurement of RMR and FA in university rowers revealed a significant positive correlation amongst males (n = 57, r = 0.344, p = 0.005, 1-tailed; standardized 95% CI, 0.090 to 0.598). Convincing evidence for a correlation among females was not found (n = 48, r = 0.142, p = 0.169, 1-tailed, standardized 95% CI, -0.152 to 0.435). DISCUSSION: The data suggest that low-quality asymmetrical growth is associated with later-life metabolic inefficiencies in males. Energetic investment in processes (likely concerning the stress-response) unrelated to growth during childhood may thereby trade-off against adult metabolic efficiency. We suggest that the presence of a relationship between RMR and FA in males but not females may be explained by the additional metabolic strain associated with larger body size and increased male muscularity, which may amplify the inefficiencies arising from low-quality growth.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".