ArticleParasitology research2025
Do positions in individual-based ectoparasite-small mammal networks differ between female and male hosts?
Article in Parasitology research, 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
We investigated the contributions of female and male hosts to the structure of individual-based host-parasite networks, using 21 species of small mammals from two regions (West Siberia and eastern Slovakia) and two taxa of ectoparasitic arthropods (fleas and gamasid mites). We asked whether (a) the values of individual host position indices (individual strength, nested rank, the degree of individual specialization, and the eigenvector centrality) and individual host roles differed between female and male hosts in each network and (if yes) were associated with differences in the infestation levels, (b) differences between sexes (if any) were further translated into differences in the network structure (nestedness and network specificity), and (c) differences between female and male hosts in their positions and roles and the effect of these differences on the network structure differed between host-flea and host-mite networks. In the majority of individual-based host-ectoparasite networks, female and male hosts differed in their positions despite a general lack of differences in the infestation levels. The distribution of the roles played in a network mostly did not differ between sexes. The extent of position differences between sexes affected the structure of host-flea, but not host-mite, networks in terms of the network specificity. In addition, the occurrence and the direction of these differences (i.e., the greater value of the position index in either female or male hosts) often varied (a) between host-flea and host-mite networks in the same host, (b) between host species within host-flea and host-mite networks, and (c) between the two regions in the same host-flea or host-mite network. We conclude that differences in the positions of male and female hosts in individual-based host-parasite networks are mediated by host biology, parasite biology, and environmental factors.
Indexed as
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.