ArticleIntegrative organismal biology (Oxford, England)2025
Investigating Metrics of Discrete-Individual Repeatability of the Stress Response.
Article in Integrative organismal biology (Oxford, England), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
There is currently no consensus on the most biologically meaningful way to calculate discrete-individual repeatability of stress response curves. In the current study, we compared three metrics of discrete-individual repeatability that incorporate the whole stress response curve: profile repeatability, Kullback-Leibler (KL) divergence, and hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) flexibility. As part of this work, we present a new R package for computing profile repeatability, "profrep." Using three datasets (one synthetic and two corticosterone datasets from live birds), our objectives were (1) to compare how these metrics correlate with one another and (2) to determine how representative repeatability scores of fewer replicates were to the "consensus" score (i.e., the score of the full dataset). We found that (1) these three discrete-individual repeatability metrics do not consistently correlate with one another; (2) KL divergence and HPA flexibility are poor at distinguishing individuals from each other (i.e., they give similar scores for each individual regardless of perceived repeatability); and (3) profile repeatability tends to overestimate repeatability when fewer replicates are available, and the consensus score is low. Despite this drawback of profile repeatability, we suggest that it may be the most well-suited metric for assessing discrete-individual repeatability.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.