Accounting for body mass effects in the estimation of field metabolic rates from body acceleration

Apr 1, 2021

SciScore for 10.1101/2020.07.24.219204: (What is this?)

Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

Table 1: Rigor

NIH rigor criteria are not applicable to paper type.

Table 2: Resources

Software and Algorithms
Sentences	Resources
The second group consisted of individuals >3 kg in mass (n=5, 107.0–154.0 cm TL), captured and housed off South Bimini, BHS near Bimini Biological Field Station (BBFS).	Bimini Biological suggested: None
Acceleration data were processed using Igor Pro (Version 7.08; Wavemetrics	Igor Pro suggested: (IGOR Pro, SCR_000325)

Results from OddPub: Thank you for sharing your data.

Results from LimitationRecognizer: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:

In circumstances where respiration measurements cannot be acquired from a range of body masses (e.g. facility or animal availability limitations), and thus mass-specific models must be extrapolated, the biases of such models must be carefully considered.
Foremost, bias drastically increases with increasing difference in body mass between the median mass of individuals in the calibration experiments and individuals for which respiration rate is being estimated.
Thus, to minimize estimation error, caution must be exercised when extrapolating isometrically or allometrically corrected estimates to animals with substantially different body masses than those used in calibration experiments.
Additionally, model bias tended to increase with relative activity level, particularly for smaller body masses.
This bias may simply be a product of the relatively larger spread of ṀO2 and VeDBA measurements during active calibration intervals compared to inactive intervals.
Using forced activity protocols to ensure more balanced sampling of different activity levels throughout calibration experiments would help to elucidate the source of this error.
Nevertheless, this activity level associated error indicates that as animals become more active, post-hoc corrections based on isometric or allometric SMR/BMR scaling rates introduce increased bias.
Thus, it is imperative to independently account for separate scaling rates of the ṀO2-DBA slope and intercept when estimating respiration of highly active species.
We found isometric corrections produced more accurate estimates than using a universal allometric correction of M0.86.
However, the higher performance of the isometric correction was likely a product of the SMR/BMR scaling rate of lemon sharks in this study being closer to isometry.
In species with lower SMR/BMR scaling exponents, like mammals (White and Seymour, 2003), it is likely that a lower nonproportional allometric masscorrection would perform better.
However, the higher performance of the isometric correction may also be due to the substantially greater scaling rate of the ṀO2-DBA slope than the intercept (i.e.
SMR/BMR).
Nevertheless, the covariate-corrected modelling approach established herein circumnavigates such issues by separately identifying slope and intercept scaling rates and outperforms commonly applied response-corrected modelling approaches.
As such, where possible, the covariate-correction approach should be used for establishing ṀO2-DBA predictive models.

Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.

Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

About SciScore

SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore is not a substitute for expert review. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers) in the manuscript, and detects sentences that appear to be missing RRIDs. SciScore also checks to make sure that rigor criteria are addressed by authors. It does this by detecting sentences that discuss criteria such as blinding or power analysis. SciScore does not guarantee that the rigor criteria that it detects are appropriate for the particular study. Instead it assists authors, editors, and reviewers by drawing attention to sections of the manuscript that contain or should contain various rigor criteria and key resources. For details on the results shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

Read the original source

SciScore for 10.1101/2020.07.24.219204: (What is this?)

Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

Table 1: Rigor

NIH rigor criteria are not applicable to paper type.

Table 2: Resources

Software and Algorithms
Sentences	Resources
The second group consisted of individuals >3 kg in mass (n=5, 107.0–154.0 cm TL), captured and housed off South Bimini, BHS near Bimini Biological Field Station (BBFS).	Bimini Biological suggested: None
Acceleration data were processed using Igor Pro (Version 7.08; Wavemetrics	Igor Pro suggested: (IGOR Pro, SCR_000325)

Results from OddPub: Thank you for sharing your data.

Results from LimitationRecognizer: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:

In circumstances where respiration measurements cannot be acquired from a range of body masses (e.g. facility or animal availability limitations), and thus mass-specific models must be extrapolated, the biases of such models must be carefully considered.
Foremost, bias drastically increases with increasing difference in body mass between the median mass of individuals in the calibration experiments and individuals for which respiration rate is being estimated.
Thus, to minimize estimation error, caution must be exercised when extrapolating isometrically or allometrically corrected estimates to animals with substantially different body masses than those used in calibration experiments.
Additionally, model bias tended to increase with relative activity level, particularly for smaller body masses.
This bias may simply be a product of the relatively larger spread of ṀO2 and VeDBA measurements during active calibration intervals compared to inactive intervals.
Using forced activity protocols to ensure more balanced sampling of different activity levels throughout calibration experiments would help to elucidate the source of this error.
Nevertheless, this activity level associated error indicates that as animals become more active, post-hoc corrections based on isometric or allometric SMR/BMR scaling rates introduce increased bias.
Thus, it is imperative to independently account for separate scaling rates of the ṀO2-DBA slope and intercept when estimating respiration of highly active species.
We found isometric corrections produced more accurate estimates than using a universal allometric correction of M0.86.
However, the higher performance of the isometric correction was likely a product of the SMR/BMR scaling rate of lemon sharks in this study being closer to isometry.
In species with lower SMR/BMR scaling exponents, like mammals (White and Seymour, 2003), it is likely that a lower nonproportional allometric masscorrection would perform better.
However, the higher performance of the isometric correction may also be due to the substantially greater scaling rate of the ṀO2-DBA slope than the intercept (i.e.
SMR/BMR).
Nevertheless, the covariate-corrected modelling approach established herein circumnavigates such issues by separately identifying slope and intercept scaling rates and outperforms commonly applied response-corrected modelling approaches.
As such, where possible, the covariate-correction approach should be used for establishing ṀO2-DBA predictive models.

Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.

Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

About SciScore

SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore is not a substitute for expert review. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers) in the manuscript, and detects sentences that appear to be missing RRIDs. SciScore also checks to make sure that rigor criteria are addressed by authors. It does this by detecting sentences that discuss criteria such as blinding or power analysis. SciScore does not guarantee that the rigor criteria that it detects are appropriate for the particular study. Instead it assists authors, editors, and reviewers by drawing attention to sections of the manuscript that contain or should contain various rigor criteria and key resources. For details on the results shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

Read the original source

SciScore for 10.1101/2020.07.24.219204: (What is this?)

Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

Table 1: Rigor

NIH rigor criteria are not applicable to paper type.

Table 2: Resources

Software and Algorithms
Sentences	Resources
The second group consisted of individuals >3 kg in mass (n=5, 107.0–154.0 cm TL), captured and housed off South Bimini, BHS near Bimini Biological Field Station (BBFS).	Bimini Biological suggested: None
Acceleration data were processed using Igor Pro (Version 7.08; Wavemetrics	Igor Pro suggested: (IGOR Pro, SCR_000325)

Results from OddPub: Thank you for sharing your data.

Results from LimitationRecognizer: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:

In circumstances where respiration measurements cannot be acquired from a range of body masses (e.g. facility or animal availability limitations), and thus mass-specific models must be extrapolated, the biases of such models must be carefully considered.
Foremost, bias drastically increases with increasing difference in body mass between the median mass of individuals in the calibration experiments and individuals for which respiration rate is being estimated.
Thus, to minimize estimation error, caution must be exercised when extrapolating isometrically or allometrically corrected estimates to animals with substantially different body masses than those used in calibration experiments.
Additionally, model bias tended to increase with relative activity level, particularly for smaller body masses.
This bias may simply be a product of the relatively larger spread of ṀO2 and VeDBA measurements during active calibration intervals compared to inactive intervals.
Using forced activity protocols to ensure more balanced sampling of different activity levels throughout calibration experiments would help to elucidate the source of this error.
Nevertheless, this activity level associated error indicates that as animals become more active, post-hoc corrections based on isometric or allometric SMR/BMR scaling rates introduce increased bias.
Thus, it is imperative to independently account for separate scaling rates of the ṀO2-DBA slope and intercept when estimating respiration of highly active species.
We found isometric corrections produced more accurate estimates than using a universal allometric correction of M0.86.
However, the higher performance of the isometric correction was likely a product of the SMR/BMR scaling rate of lemon sharks in this study being closer to isometry.
In species with lower SMR/BMR scaling exponents, like mammals (White and Seymour, 2003), it is likely that a lower nonproportional allometric masscorrection would perform better.
However, the higher performance of the isometric correction may also be due to the substantially greater scaling rate of the ṀO2-DBA slope than the intercept (i.e.
SMR/BMR).
Nevertheless, the covariate-corrected modelling approach established herein circumnavigates such issues by separately identifying slope and intercept scaling rates and outperforms commonly applied response-corrected modelling approaches.
As such, where possible, the covariate-correction approach should be used for establishing ṀO2-DBA predictive models.

Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.

Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

About SciScore

SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore is not a substitute for expert review. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers) in the manuscript, and detects sentences that appear to be missing RRIDs. SciScore also checks to make sure that rigor criteria are addressed by authors. It does this by detecting sentences that discuss criteria such as blinding or power analysis. SciScore does not guarantee that the rigor criteria that it detects are appropriate for the particular study. Instead it assists authors, editors, and reviewers by drawing attention to sections of the manuscript that contain or should contain various rigor criteria and key resources. For details on the results shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

Read the original source

SciScore for 10.1101/2020.07.24.219204: (What is this?)

Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

Table 1: Rigor

NIH rigor criteria are not applicable to paper type.

Table 2: Resources

Software and Algorithms
Sentences	Resources
The second group consisted of individuals >3 kg in mass (n=5, 107.0–154.0 cm TL), captured and housed off South Bimini, BHS near Bimini Biological Field Station (BBFS).	Bimini Biological suggested: None
Acceleration data were processed using Igor Pro (Version 7.08; Wavemetrics	Igor Pro suggested: (IGOR Pro, SCR_000325)

Results from OddPub: Thank you for sharing your data.

Results from LimitationRecognizer: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:

In circumstances where respiration measurements cannot be acquired from a range of body masses (e.g. facility or animal availability limitations), and thus mass-specific models must be extrapolated, the biases of such models must be carefully considered.
Foremost, bias drastically increases with increasing difference in body mass between the median mass of individuals in the calibration experiments and individuals for which respiration rate is being estimated.
Thus, to minimize estimation error, caution must be exercised when extrapolating isometrically or allometrically corrected estimates to animals with substantially different body masses than those used in calibration experiments.
Additionally, model bias tended to increase with relative activity level, particularly for smaller body masses.
This bias may simply be a product of the relatively larger spread of ṀO2 and VeDBA measurements during active calibration intervals compared to inactive intervals.
Using forced activity protocols to ensure more balanced sampling of different activity levels throughout calibration experiments would help to elucidate the source of this error.
Nevertheless, this activity level associated error indicates that as animals become more active, post-hoc corrections based on isometric or allometric SMR/BMR scaling rates introduce increased bias.
Thus, it is imperative to independently account for separate scaling rates of the ṀO2-DBA slope and intercept when estimating respiration of highly active species.
We found isometric corrections produced more accurate estimates than using a universal allometric correction of M0.86.
However, the higher performance of the isometric correction was likely a product of the SMR/BMR scaling rate of lemon sharks in this study being closer to isometry.
In species with lower SMR/BMR scaling exponents, like mammals (White and Seymour, 2003), it is likely that a lower nonproportional allometric masscorrection would perform better.
However, the higher performance of the isometric correction may also be due to the substantially greater scaling rate of the ṀO2-DBA slope than the intercept (i.e.
SMR/BMR).
Nevertheless, the covariate-corrected modelling approach established herein circumnavigates such issues by separately identifying slope and intercept scaling rates and outperforms commonly applied response-corrected modelling approaches.
As such, where possible, the covariate-correction approach should be used for establishing ṀO2-DBA predictive models.

Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.

Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

About SciScore

SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore is not a substitute for expert review. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers) in the manuscript, and detects sentences that appear to be missing RRIDs. SciScore also checks to make sure that rigor criteria are addressed by authors. It does this by detecting sentences that discuss criteria such as blinding or power analysis. SciScore does not guarantee that the rigor criteria that it detects are appropriate for the particular study. Instead it assists authors, editors, and reviewers by drawing attention to sections of the manuscript that contain or should contain various rigor criteria and key resources. For details on the results shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

Read the original source

SciScore for 10.1101/2020.07.24.219204: (What is this?)

Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

Table 1: Rigor

NIH rigor criteria are not applicable to paper type.

Table 2: Resources

Software and Algorithms
Sentences	Resources
The second group consisted of individuals >3 kg in mass (n=5, 107.0–154.0 cm TL), captured and housed off South Bimini, BHS near Bimini Biological Field Station (BBFS).	Bimini Biological suggested: None
Acceleration data were processed using Igor Pro (Version 7.08; Wavemetrics	Igor Pro suggested: (IGOR Pro, SCR_000325)

Results from OddPub: Thank you for sharing your data.

Results from LimitationRecognizer: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:

In circumstances where respiration measurements cannot be acquired from a range of body masses (e.g. facility or animal availability limitations), and thus mass-specific models must be extrapolated, the biases of such models must be carefully considered.
Foremost, bias drastically increases with increasing difference in body mass between the median mass of individuals in the calibration experiments and individuals for which respiration rate is being estimated.
Thus, to minimize estimation error, caution must be exercised when extrapolating isometrically or allometrically corrected estimates to animals with substantially different body masses than those used in calibration experiments.
Additionally, model bias tended to increase with relative activity level, particularly for smaller body masses.
This bias may simply be a product of the relatively larger spread of ṀO2 and VeDBA measurements during active calibration intervals compared to inactive intervals.
Using forced activity protocols to ensure more balanced sampling of different activity levels throughout calibration experiments would help to elucidate the source of this error.
Nevertheless, this activity level associated error indicates that as animals become more active, post-hoc corrections based on isometric or allometric SMR/BMR scaling rates introduce increased bias.
Thus, it is imperative to independently account for separate scaling rates of the ṀO2-DBA slope and intercept when estimating respiration of highly active species.
We found isometric corrections produced more accurate estimates than using a universal allometric correction of M0.86.
However, the higher performance of the isometric correction was likely a product of the SMR/BMR scaling rate of lemon sharks in this study being closer to isometry.
In species with lower SMR/BMR scaling exponents, like mammals (White and Seymour, 2003), it is likely that a lower nonproportional allometric masscorrection would perform better.
However, the higher performance of the isometric correction may also be due to the substantially greater scaling rate of the ṀO2-DBA slope than the intercept (i.e.
SMR/BMR).
Nevertheless, the covariate-corrected modelling approach established herein circumnavigates such issues by separately identifying slope and intercept scaling rates and outperforms commonly applied response-corrected modelling approaches.
As such, where possible, the covariate-correction approach should be used for establishing ṀO2-DBA predictive models.

Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.

Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

About SciScore

SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore is not a substitute for expert review. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers) in the manuscript, and detects sentences that appear to be missing RRIDs. SciScore also checks to make sure that rigor criteria are addressed by authors. It does this by detecting sentences that discuss criteria such as blinding or power analysis. SciScore does not guarantee that the rigor criteria that it detects are appropriate for the particular study. Instead it assists authors, editors, and reviewers by drawing attention to sections of the manuscript that contain or should contain various rigor criteria and key resources. For details on the results shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

Read the original source

SciScore for 10.1101/2020.07.24.219204: (What is this?)

Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

Table 1: Rigor

NIH rigor criteria are not applicable to paper type.

Table 2: Resources

Software and Algorithms
Sentences	Resources
The second group consisted of individuals >3 kg in mass (n=5, 107.0–154.0 cm TL), captured and housed off South Bimini, BHS near Bimini Biological Field Station (BBFS).	Bimini Biological suggested: None
Acceleration data were processed using Igor Pro (Version 7.08; Wavemetrics	Igor Pro suggested: (IGOR Pro, SCR_000325)

Results from OddPub: Thank you for sharing your data.

Results from LimitationRecognizer: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:

In circumstances where respiration measurements cannot be acquired from a range of body masses (e.g. facility or animal availability limitations), and thus mass-specific models must be extrapolated, the biases of such models must be carefully considered.
Foremost, bias drastically increases with increasing difference in body mass between the median mass of individuals in the calibration experiments and individuals for which respiration rate is being estimated.
Thus, to minimize estimation error, caution must be exercised when extrapolating isometrically or allometrically corrected estimates to animals with substantially different body masses than those used in calibration experiments.
Additionally, model bias tended to increase with relative activity level, particularly for smaller body masses.
This bias may simply be a product of the relatively larger spread of ṀO2 and VeDBA measurements during active calibration intervals compared to inactive intervals.
Using forced activity protocols to ensure more balanced sampling of different activity levels throughout calibration experiments would help to elucidate the source of this error.
Nevertheless, this activity level associated error indicates that as animals become more active, post-hoc corrections based on isometric or allometric SMR/BMR scaling rates introduce increased bias.
Thus, it is imperative to independently account for separate scaling rates of the ṀO2-DBA slope and intercept when estimating respiration of highly active species.
We found isometric corrections produced more accurate estimates than using a universal allometric correction of M0.86.
However, the higher performance of the isometric correction was likely a product of the SMR/BMR scaling rate of lemon sharks in this study being closer to isometry.
In species with lower SMR/BMR scaling exponents, like mammals (White and Seymour, 2003), it is likely that a lower nonproportional allometric masscorrection would perform better.
However, the higher performance of the isometric correction may also be due to the substantially greater scaling rate of the ṀO2-DBA slope than the intercept (i.e.
SMR/BMR).
Nevertheless, the covariate-corrected modelling approach established herein circumnavigates such issues by separately identifying slope and intercept scaling rates and outperforms commonly applied response-corrected modelling approaches.
As such, where possible, the covariate-correction approach should be used for establishing ṀO2-DBA predictive models.

Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.

Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

About SciScore

SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore is not a substitute for expert review. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers) in the manuscript, and detects sentences that appear to be missing RRIDs. SciScore also checks to make sure that rigor criteria are addressed by authors. It does this by detecting sentences that discuss criteria such as blinding or power analysis. SciScore does not guarantee that the rigor criteria that it detects are appropriate for the particular study. Instead it assists authors, editors, and reviewers by drawing attention to sections of the manuscript that contain or should contain various rigor criteria and key resources. For details on the results shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

Read the original source

SciScore for 10.1101/2020.07.24.219204: (What is this?)

Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

Table 1: Rigor

NIH rigor criteria are not applicable to paper type.

Table 2: Resources

Software and Algorithms
Sentences	Resources
The second group consisted of individuals >3 kg in mass (n=5, 107.0–154.0 cm TL), captured and housed off South Bimini, BHS near Bimini Biological Field Station (BBFS).	Bimini Biological suggested: None
Acceleration data were processed using Igor Pro (Version 7.08; Wavemetrics	Igor Pro suggested: (IGOR Pro, SCR_000325)

Results from OddPub: Thank you for sharing your data.

Results from LimitationRecognizer: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:

In circumstances where respiration measurements cannot be acquired from a range of body masses (e.g. facility or animal availability limitations), and thus mass-specific models must be extrapolated, the biases of such models must be carefully considered.
Foremost, bias drastically increases with increasing difference in body mass between the median mass of individuals in the calibration experiments and individuals for which respiration rate is being estimated.
Thus, to minimize estimation error, caution must be exercised when extrapolating isometrically or allometrically corrected estimates to animals with substantially different body masses than those used in calibration experiments.
Additionally, model bias tended to increase with relative activity level, particularly for smaller body masses.
This bias may simply be a product of the relatively larger spread of ṀO2 and VeDBA measurements during active calibration intervals compared to inactive intervals.
Using forced activity protocols to ensure more balanced sampling of different activity levels throughout calibration experiments would help to elucidate the source of this error.
Nevertheless, this activity level associated error indicates that as animals become more active, post-hoc corrections based on isometric or allometric SMR/BMR scaling rates introduce increased bias.
Thus, it is imperative to independently account for separate scaling rates of the ṀO2-DBA slope and intercept when estimating respiration of highly active species.
We found isometric corrections produced more accurate estimates than using a universal allometric correction of M0.86.
However, the higher performance of the isometric correction was likely a product of the SMR/BMR scaling rate of lemon sharks in this study being closer to isometry.
In species with lower SMR/BMR scaling exponents, like mammals (White and Seymour, 2003), it is likely that a lower nonproportional allometric masscorrection would perform better.
However, the higher performance of the isometric correction may also be due to the substantially greater scaling rate of the ṀO2-DBA slope than the intercept (i.e.
SMR/BMR).
Nevertheless, the covariate-corrected modelling approach established herein circumnavigates such issues by separately identifying slope and intercept scaling rates and outperforms commonly applied response-corrected modelling approaches.
As such, where possible, the covariate-correction approach should be used for establishing ṀO2-DBA predictive models.

Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.

Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

About SciScore

SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore is not a substitute for expert review. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers) in the manuscript, and detects sentences that appear to be missing RRIDs. SciScore also checks to make sure that rigor criteria are addressed by authors. It does this by detecting sentences that discuss criteria such as blinding or power analysis. SciScore does not guarantee that the rigor criteria that it detects are appropriate for the particular study. Instead it assists authors, editors, and reviewers by drawing attention to sections of the manuscript that contain or should contain various rigor criteria and key resources. For details on the results shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

Read the original source

SciScore for 10.1101/2020.07.24.219204: (What is this?)

Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

Table 1: Rigor

NIH rigor criteria are not applicable to paper type.

Table 2: Resources

Software and Algorithms
Sentences	Resources
The second group consisted of individuals >3 kg in mass (n=5, 107.0–154.0 cm TL), captured and housed off South Bimini, BHS near Bimini Biological Field Station (BBFS).	Bimini Biological suggested: None
Acceleration data were processed using Igor Pro (Version 7.08; Wavemetrics	Igor Pro suggested: (IGOR Pro, SCR_000325)

Results from OddPub: Thank you for sharing your data.

Results from LimitationRecognizer: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:

In circumstances where respiration measurements cannot be acquired from a range of body masses (e.g. facility or animal availability limitations), and thus mass-specific models must be extrapolated, the biases of such models must be carefully considered.
Foremost, bias drastically increases with increasing difference in body mass between the median mass of individuals in the calibration experiments and individuals for which respiration rate is being estimated.
Thus, to minimize estimation error, caution must be exercised when extrapolating isometrically or allometrically corrected estimates to animals with substantially different body masses than those used in calibration experiments.
Additionally, model bias tended to increase with relative activity level, particularly for smaller body masses.
This bias may simply be a product of the relatively larger spread of ṀO2 and VeDBA measurements during active calibration intervals compared to inactive intervals.
Using forced activity protocols to ensure more balanced sampling of different activity levels throughout calibration experiments would help to elucidate the source of this error.
Nevertheless, this activity level associated error indicates that as animals become more active, post-hoc corrections based on isometric or allometric SMR/BMR scaling rates introduce increased bias.
Thus, it is imperative to independently account for separate scaling rates of the ṀO2-DBA slope and intercept when estimating respiration of highly active species.
We found isometric corrections produced more accurate estimates than using a universal allometric correction of M0.86.
However, the higher performance of the isometric correction was likely a product of the SMR/BMR scaling rate of lemon sharks in this study being closer to isometry.
In species with lower SMR/BMR scaling exponents, like mammals (White and Seymour, 2003), it is likely that a lower nonproportional allometric masscorrection would perform better.
However, the higher performance of the isometric correction may also be due to the substantially greater scaling rate of the ṀO2-DBA slope than the intercept (i.e.
SMR/BMR).
Nevertheless, the covariate-corrected modelling approach established herein circumnavigates such issues by separately identifying slope and intercept scaling rates and outperforms commonly applied response-corrected modelling approaches.
As such, where possible, the covariate-correction approach should be used for establishing ṀO2-DBA predictive models.

Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.

Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

About SciScore

SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore is not a substitute for expert review. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers) in the manuscript, and detects sentences that appear to be missing RRIDs. SciScore also checks to make sure that rigor criteria are addressed by authors. It does this by detecting sentences that discuss criteria such as blinding or power analysis. SciScore does not guarantee that the rigor criteria that it detects are appropriate for the particular study. Instead it assists authors, editors, and reviewers by drawing attention to sections of the manuscript that contain or should contain various rigor criteria and key resources. For details on the results shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

Read the original source

SciScore for 10.1101/2020.07.24.219204: (What is this?)

Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

Table 1: Rigor

NIH rigor criteria are not applicable to paper type.

Table 2: Resources

Software and Algorithms
Sentences	Resources
The second group consisted of individuals >3 kg in mass (n=5, 107.0–154.0 cm TL), captured and housed off South Bimini, BHS near Bimini Biological Field Station (BBFS).	Bimini Biological suggested: None
Acceleration data were processed using Igor Pro (Version 7.08; Wavemetrics	Igor Pro suggested: (IGOR Pro, SCR_000325)

Results from OddPub: Thank you for sharing your data.

Results from LimitationRecognizer: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:

In circumstances where respiration measurements cannot be acquired from a range of body masses (e.g. facility or animal availability limitations), and thus mass-specific models must be extrapolated, the biases of such models must be carefully considered.
Foremost, bias drastically increases with increasing difference in body mass between the median mass of individuals in the calibration experiments and individuals for which respiration rate is being estimated.
Thus, to minimize estimation error, caution must be exercised when extrapolating isometrically or allometrically corrected estimates to animals with substantially different body masses than those used in calibration experiments.
Additionally, model bias tended to increase with relative activity level, particularly for smaller body masses.
This bias may simply be a product of the relatively larger spread of ṀO2 and VeDBA measurements during active calibration intervals compared to inactive intervals.
Using forced activity protocols to ensure more balanced sampling of different activity levels throughout calibration experiments would help to elucidate the source of this error.
Nevertheless, this activity level associated error indicates that as animals become more active, post-hoc corrections based on isometric or allometric SMR/BMR scaling rates introduce increased bias.
Thus, it is imperative to independently account for separate scaling rates of the ṀO2-DBA slope and intercept when estimating respiration of highly active species.
We found isometric corrections produced more accurate estimates than using a universal allometric correction of M0.86.
However, the higher performance of the isometric correction was likely a product of the SMR/BMR scaling rate of lemon sharks in this study being closer to isometry.
In species with lower SMR/BMR scaling exponents, like mammals (White and Seymour, 2003), it is likely that a lower nonproportional allometric masscorrection would perform better.
However, the higher performance of the isometric correction may also be due to the substantially greater scaling rate of the ṀO2-DBA slope than the intercept (i.e.
SMR/BMR).
Nevertheless, the covariate-corrected modelling approach established herein circumnavigates such issues by separately identifying slope and intercept scaling rates and outperforms commonly applied response-corrected modelling approaches.
As such, where possible, the covariate-correction approach should be used for establishing ṀO2-DBA predictive models.

Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.

Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

About SciScore

SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore is not a substitute for expert review. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers) in the manuscript, and detects sentences that appear to be missing RRIDs. SciScore also checks to make sure that rigor criteria are addressed by authors. It does this by detecting sentences that discuss criteria such as blinding or power analysis. SciScore does not guarantee that the rigor criteria that it detects are appropriate for the particular study. Instead it assists authors, editors, and reviewers by drawing attention to sections of the manuscript that contain or should contain various rigor criteria and key resources. For details on the results shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

Read the original source

SciScore for 10.1101/2020.07.24.219204: (What is this?)

Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

Table 1: Rigor

NIH rigor criteria are not applicable to paper type.

Table 2: Resources

Software and Algorithms
Sentences	Resources
The second group consisted of individuals >3 kg in mass (n=5, 107.0–154.0 cm TL), captured and housed off South Bimini, BHS near Bimini Biological Field Station (BBFS).	Bimini Biological suggested: None
Acceleration data were processed using Igor Pro (Version 7.08; Wavemetrics	Igor Pro suggested: (IGOR Pro, SCR_000325)

Results from OddPub: Thank you for sharing your data.

Results from LimitationRecognizer: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:

In circumstances where respiration measurements cannot be acquired from a range of body masses (e.g. facility or animal availability limitations), and thus mass-specific models must be extrapolated, the biases of such models must be carefully considered.
Foremost, bias drastically increases with increasing difference in body mass between the median mass of individuals in the calibration experiments and individuals for which respiration rate is being estimated.
Thus, to minimize estimation error, caution must be exercised when extrapolating isometrically or allometrically corrected estimates to animals with substantially different body masses than those used in calibration experiments.
Additionally, model bias tended to increase with relative activity level, particularly for smaller body masses.
This bias may simply be a product of the relatively larger spread of ṀO2 and VeDBA measurements during active calibration intervals compared to inactive intervals.
Using forced activity protocols to ensure more balanced sampling of different activity levels throughout calibration experiments would help to elucidate the source of this error.
Nevertheless, this activity level associated error indicates that as animals become more active, post-hoc corrections based on isometric or allometric SMR/BMR scaling rates introduce increased bias.
Thus, it is imperative to independently account for separate scaling rates of the ṀO2-DBA slope and intercept when estimating respiration of highly active species.
We found isometric corrections produced more accurate estimates than using a universal allometric correction of M0.86.
However, the higher performance of the isometric correction was likely a product of the SMR/BMR scaling rate of lemon sharks in this study being closer to isometry.
In species with lower SMR/BMR scaling exponents, like mammals (White and Seymour, 2003), it is likely that a lower nonproportional allometric masscorrection would perform better.
However, the higher performance of the isometric correction may also be due to the substantially greater scaling rate of the ṀO2-DBA slope than the intercept (i.e.
SMR/BMR).
Nevertheless, the covariate-corrected modelling approach established herein circumnavigates such issues by separately identifying slope and intercept scaling rates and outperforms commonly applied response-corrected modelling approaches.
As such, where possible, the covariate-correction approach should be used for establishing ṀO2-DBA predictive models.

Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.

Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

About SciScore

SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore is not a substitute for expert review. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers) in the manuscript, and detects sentences that appear to be missing RRIDs. SciScore also checks to make sure that rigor criteria are addressed by authors. It does this by detecting sentences that discuss criteria such as blinding or power analysis. SciScore does not guarantee that the rigor criteria that it detects are appropriate for the particular study. Instead it assists authors, editors, and reviewers by drawing attention to sections of the manuscript that contain or should contain various rigor criteria and key resources. For details on the results shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

Read the original source

SciScore for 10.1101/2020.07.24.219204: (What is this?)

Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

Table 1: Rigor

NIH rigor criteria are not applicable to paper type.

Table 2: Resources

Software and Algorithms
Sentences	Resources
The second group consisted of individuals >3 kg in mass (n=5, 107.0–154.0 cm TL), captured and housed off South Bimini, BHS near Bimini Biological Field Station (BBFS).	Bimini Biological suggested: None
Acceleration data were processed using Igor Pro (Version 7.08; Wavemetrics	Igor Pro suggested: (IGOR Pro, SCR_000325)

Results from OddPub: Thank you for sharing your data.

Results from LimitationRecognizer: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:

In circumstances where respiration measurements cannot be acquired from a range of body masses (e.g. facility or animal availability limitations), and thus mass-specific models must be extrapolated, the biases of such models must be carefully considered.
Foremost, bias drastically increases with increasing difference in body mass between the median mass of individuals in the calibration experiments and individuals for which respiration rate is being estimated.
Thus, to minimize estimation error, caution must be exercised when extrapolating isometrically or allometrically corrected estimates to animals with substantially different body masses than those used in calibration experiments.
Additionally, model bias tended to increase with relative activity level, particularly for smaller body masses.
This bias may simply be a product of the relatively larger spread of ṀO2 and VeDBA measurements during active calibration intervals compared to inactive intervals.
Using forced activity protocols to ensure more balanced sampling of different activity levels throughout calibration experiments would help to elucidate the source of this error.
Nevertheless, this activity level associated error indicates that as animals become more active, post-hoc corrections based on isometric or allometric SMR/BMR scaling rates introduce increased bias.
Thus, it is imperative to independently account for separate scaling rates of the ṀO2-DBA slope and intercept when estimating respiration of highly active species.
We found isometric corrections produced more accurate estimates than using a universal allometric correction of M0.86.
However, the higher performance of the isometric correction was likely a product of the SMR/BMR scaling rate of lemon sharks in this study being closer to isometry.
In species with lower SMR/BMR scaling exponents, like mammals (White and Seymour, 2003), it is likely that a lower nonproportional allometric masscorrection would perform better.
However, the higher performance of the isometric correction may also be due to the substantially greater scaling rate of the ṀO2-DBA slope than the intercept (i.e.
SMR/BMR).
Nevertheless, the covariate-corrected modelling approach established herein circumnavigates such issues by separately identifying slope and intercept scaling rates and outperforms commonly applied response-corrected modelling approaches.
As such, where possible, the covariate-correction approach should be used for establishing ṀO2-DBA predictive models.

Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.

Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

About SciScore

SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore is not a substitute for expert review. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers) in the manuscript, and detects sentences that appear to be missing RRIDs. SciScore also checks to make sure that rigor criteria are addressed by authors. It does this by detecting sentences that discuss criteria such as blinding or power analysis. SciScore does not guarantee that the rigor criteria that it detects are appropriate for the particular study. Instead it assists authors, editors, and reviewers by drawing attention to sections of the manuscript that contain or should contain various rigor criteria and key resources. For details on the results shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

Read the original source

SciScore for 10.1101/2020.07.24.219204: (What is this?)

Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

Table 1: Rigor

NIH rigor criteria are not applicable to paper type.

Table 2: Resources

Software and Algorithms
Sentences	Resources
The second group consisted of individuals >3 kg in mass (n=5, 107.0–154.0 cm TL), captured and housed off South Bimini, BHS near Bimini Biological Field Station (BBFS).	Bimini Biological suggested: None
Acceleration data were processed using Igor Pro (Version 7.08; Wavemetrics	Igor Pro suggested: (IGOR Pro, SCR_000325)

Results from OddPub: Thank you for sharing your data.

Results from LimitationRecognizer: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:

In circumstances where respiration measurements cannot be acquired from a range of body masses (e.g. facility or animal availability limitations), and thus mass-specific models must be extrapolated, the biases of such models must be carefully considered.
Foremost, bias drastically increases with increasing difference in body mass between the median mass of individuals in the calibration experiments and individuals for which respiration rate is being estimated.
Thus, to minimize estimation error, caution must be exercised when extrapolating isometrically or allometrically corrected estimates to animals with substantially different body masses than those used in calibration experiments.
Additionally, model bias tended to increase with relative activity level, particularly for smaller body masses.
This bias may simply be a product of the relatively larger spread of ṀO2 and VeDBA measurements during active calibration intervals compared to inactive intervals.
Using forced activity protocols to ensure more balanced sampling of different activity levels throughout calibration experiments would help to elucidate the source of this error.
Nevertheless, this activity level associated error indicates that as animals become more active, post-hoc corrections based on isometric or allometric SMR/BMR scaling rates introduce increased bias.
Thus, it is imperative to independently account for separate scaling rates of the ṀO2-DBA slope and intercept when estimating respiration of highly active species.
We found isometric corrections produced more accurate estimates than using a universal allometric correction of M0.86.
However, the higher performance of the isometric correction was likely a product of the SMR/BMR scaling rate of lemon sharks in this study being closer to isometry.
In species with lower SMR/BMR scaling exponents, like mammals (White and Seymour, 2003), it is likely that a lower nonproportional allometric masscorrection would perform better.
However, the higher performance of the isometric correction may also be due to the substantially greater scaling rate of the ṀO2-DBA slope than the intercept (i.e.
SMR/BMR).
Nevertheless, the covariate-corrected modelling approach established herein circumnavigates such issues by separately identifying slope and intercept scaling rates and outperforms commonly applied response-corrected modelling approaches.
As such, where possible, the covariate-correction approach should be used for establishing ṀO2-DBA predictive models.

Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.

Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

About SciScore

SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore is not a substitute for expert review. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers) in the manuscript, and detects sentences that appear to be missing RRIDs. SciScore also checks to make sure that rigor criteria are addressed by authors. It does this by detecting sentences that discuss criteria such as blinding or power analysis. SciScore does not guarantee that the rigor criteria that it detects are appropriate for the particular study. Instead it assists authors, editors, and reviewers by drawing attention to sections of the manuscript that contain or should contain various rigor criteria and key resources. For details on the results shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

Read the original source

SciScore for 10.1101/2020.07.24.219204: (What is this?)

Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

Table 1: Rigor

NIH rigor criteria are not applicable to paper type.

Table 2: Resources

Software and Algorithms
Sentences	Resources
The second group consisted of individuals >3 kg in mass (n=5, 107.0–154.0 cm TL), captured and housed off South Bimini, BHS near Bimini Biological Field Station (BBFS).	Bimini Biological suggested: None
Acceleration data were processed using Igor Pro (Version 7.08; Wavemetrics	Igor Pro suggested: (IGOR Pro, SCR_000325)

Results from OddPub: Thank you for sharing your data.

Results from LimitationRecognizer: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:

In circumstances where respiration measurements cannot be acquired from a range of body masses (e.g. facility or animal availability limitations), and thus mass-specific models must be extrapolated, the biases of such models must be carefully considered.
Foremost, bias drastically increases with increasing difference in body mass between the median mass of individuals in the calibration experiments and individuals for which respiration rate is being estimated.
Thus, to minimize estimation error, caution must be exercised when extrapolating isometrically or allometrically corrected estimates to animals with substantially different body masses than those used in calibration experiments.
Additionally, model bias tended to increase with relative activity level, particularly for smaller body masses.
This bias may simply be a product of the relatively larger spread of ṀO2 and VeDBA measurements during active calibration intervals compared to inactive intervals.
Using forced activity protocols to ensure more balanced sampling of different activity levels throughout calibration experiments would help to elucidate the source of this error.
Nevertheless, this activity level associated error indicates that as animals become more active, post-hoc corrections based on isometric or allometric SMR/BMR scaling rates introduce increased bias.
Thus, it is imperative to independently account for separate scaling rates of the ṀO2-DBA slope and intercept when estimating respiration of highly active species.
We found isometric corrections produced more accurate estimates than using a universal allometric correction of M0.86.
However, the higher performance of the isometric correction was likely a product of the SMR/BMR scaling rate of lemon sharks in this study being closer to isometry.
In species with lower SMR/BMR scaling exponents, like mammals (White and Seymour, 2003), it is likely that a lower nonproportional allometric masscorrection would perform better.
However, the higher performance of the isometric correction may also be due to the substantially greater scaling rate of the ṀO2-DBA slope than the intercept (i.e.
SMR/BMR).
Nevertheless, the covariate-corrected modelling approach established herein circumnavigates such issues by separately identifying slope and intercept scaling rates and outperforms commonly applied response-corrected modelling approaches.
As such, where possible, the covariate-correction approach should be used for establishing ṀO2-DBA predictive models.

Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.

Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

About SciScore

SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore is not a substitute for expert review. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers) in the manuscript, and detects sentences that appear to be missing RRIDs. SciScore also checks to make sure that rigor criteria are addressed by authors. It does this by detecting sentences that discuss criteria such as blinding or power analysis. SciScore does not guarantee that the rigor criteria that it detects are appropriate for the particular study. Instead it assists authors, editors, and reviewers by drawing attention to sections of the manuscript that contain or should contain various rigor criteria and key resources. For details on the results shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

Read the original source

Accounting for body mass effects in the estimation of field metabolic rates from body acceleration

This article has been Reviewed by the following groups

Listed in

Abstract

Article activity feed