Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40070719›Full record

ArticleIntegrative organismal biology (Oxford, England)2025

Investigating Metrics of Discrete-Individual Repeatability of the Stress Response.

U K Beattie, L M Romero, J M Reed

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

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.

U K BeattieDepartment of Biology, Tufts University, 200 College Ave, Medford, MA 02155, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7131-3712
L M RomeroDepartment of Biology, Tufts University, 200 College Ave, Medford, MA 02155, USA.
J M ReedDepartment of Biology, Tufts University, 200 College Ave, Medford, MA 02155, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

PMID40070719
PMCPMC11894371

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.