Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39874246›Full record

ArticlePloS one2025

The importance of method selection when estimating diet composition with quantitative fatty acid signature analysis.

Jeffrey F Bromaghin, Todd C Atwood, Karyn D Rode

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Jeffrey F BromaghinAlaska Science Center, U.S. Geological Survey, Anchorage, AK, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-7209-9500
Todd C AtwoodAlaska Science Center, U.S. Geological Survey, Anchorage, AK, United States of America.
Karyn D RodeAlaska Science Center, U.S. Geological Survey, Anchorage, AK, United States of America.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Quantitative fatty acid signature analysis (QFASA) is a common method of estimating the composition of prey species in the diets of consumers from polar and temperate ecosystems in which lipids are an important source of energy. A key characteristic of QFASA is that the large number of fatty acids that typically comprise lipids permits the dietary contributions of a correspondingly large number of prey types to be estimated. Several modifications to the original QFASA methods have been suggested in the literature and a significant extension of the original model published in 2017 allows simultaneous estimation of both diet proportions and calibration coefficients, which are metabolic constants in the model whose values must otherwise be estimated in independent feeding experiments. However, comparisons of diet estimates obtained using different estimation options have been limited. QFASA has been used to estimate the diet composition of several polar bear (Ursus maritimus) subpopulations, including the Southern Beaufort Sea (SBS) subpopulation. Prior QFASA estimates of SBS polar bear diet composition have most often been obtained using variations of the original QFASA model. We investigated the influence of variations in QFASA analytical methods on diet estimates by re-estimating the diet composition of polar bears from the Alaska portion of the SBS using three different methods and found that differences among the three sets of estimates were substantial. Our results illustrate how important the careful and deliberate selection of QFASA methods can be and we provide some guidance on techniques one might use to evaluate options.

Indexed as

DietFatty AcidsUrsidaeAnimalsFatty Acids

Identifiers

PMID39874246
PMCPMC11774378

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC0
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.