Analytical methods matter too: Establishing a framework for estimating maximum metabolic rate for fishes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Advances in experimental design and equipment have simplified the collection of maximum metabolic rate (MMR) data for a more diverse array of water-breathing animals. However, little attention has been given to the consequences of analytical choices in the estimation of MMR. Using different analytical methods can reduce the comparability of MMR estimates across species and studies and has consequences for the burgeoning number of macroecological meta-analyses using metabolic rate data. Two key analytical choices that require standardization are the time interval, or regression window width, over which MMR is estimated, and the method used to locate that regression window within the raw oxygen depletion trace. Here, we consider the effect of both choices by estimating MMR for two shark and two salmonid species of different activity levels using multiple regression window widths and three analytical methods: rolling regression, sequential regression, and segmented regression. Shorter regression windows yielded higher metabolic rate estimates, with a risk that the shortest windows (<1-min) reflect more system noise than MMR signal. Rolling regression was the best candidate model and produced the highest MMR estimates. Sequential regression models consistently produced lower relative estimates than rolling regression models, while the segmented regression model was unable to produce consistent MMR estimates across individuals. The time-point of the MMR regression window along the oxygen consumption trace varied considerably across individuals but not across models. We show that choice of analytical method, in addition to more widely understood experimental choices, profoundly affect the resultant estimates of MMR. We recommend that researchers (1) employ a rolling regression model with a reliable regression window tailored to their experimental system and (2) explicitly report their analytical methods, including publishing raw data and code.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".