Assessment of fighting ability in animal contests

Selection should favour accurate information gathering regarding the likely costs and benefits of continued conflict. Here we consider how variation in the abilities of contestants to assess resource-holding potential (RHP) influences fights. This has been examined in various game theory models. However, discriminating between assessment strategies has proven difficult and has resulted in confusion. To add clarity, we group existing models into three main types that differ in the information about RHP that contestants are presumed to gather: (1) pure self-assessment, (2) cumulative assessment and (3) mutual assessment. Within this framework we outline methods advocated to discriminate successfully between the three main assessment models. We discuss support for each model, before highlighting a number of conflicting and inconclusive studies, leading us to consider alternative approaches to investigate assessment. Furthermore, we examine support for newly emerging concepts such as 'varying degrees of assessment', 'switching assessment' strategies and the possibility of contestants adopting different assessment strategies within a fight involving distinctive roles. We suggest future studies will benefit by judicious use of a battery of techniques to determine how animals settle contests. Finally, we highlight difficulties with current game theory models, and raise concerns regarding the use of certain behavioural criteria to accept or reject a model, particularly since this may conflict with evidence for a given assessment strategy. Furthermore, the failure of existing models to account for newly emerging concepts points to limitations of their use and leads us to challenge game theoreticians to develop upon them. (C) 2009 The Association for the Study of Animal Behaviour. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Information gathering and decision making about resource value in animal contests

Contestants are predicted to adjust the cost of a fight in line with the perceived value of the resource and this provides a way of determining whether the resource has been assessed. An assessment of resource value is predicted to alter an animal's motivational state and we note different methods of measuring that state. We provide a categorical framework in which the degree of resource assessment may be evaluated and also note limitations of various approaches. We place studies in six categories: (1) cases of no assessment, (2) cases of internal state such as hunger influencing apparent value, (3) cases of the contestants differing in assessment ability, (4) cases of mutual and equal assessment of value, (5) cases where opponents differ in resource value and (6) cases of particularly complex assessment abilities that involve a comparison of the value of two resources. We examine the extent to which these studies support game theory predictions and suggest future areas of research. (C) 2008 The Association for the Study of Animal Behaviour. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Can statins prevent or help treat Alzheimer's disease?

Evidence accumulating from biological and epidemiological studies suggests that high levels of serum cholesterol may promote the pathological processes that lead to Alzheimer's disease (AD). Lowering cholesterol in experimental animal models slows the expression of Alzheimer's pathology. These findings raise the possibility that treating humans with cholesterol lowering medications might reduce the risk of developing AD or help treat it. The statins (lovastatin, pravastatin, simvastatin, and others) are powerful cholesterol lowering agents of proven benefit in vascular disease. Several clinical studies comparing the occurrence of AD between users and non-users of statins suggested that risk of AD was substantially reduced among the users. However, because these studies were not randomized trials, they provided insufficient evidence to recommend statin therapy. Cochrane reviews are based on the best available information about healthcare interventions and they focus primarily on randomized controlled trials (RCTs). On the issue of prevention, two randomized trials have been carried out and neither showed any reduction in occurrence of AD in patients treated with statins compared to those given placebo. Statins cannot therefore be recommended for the prevention of AD. Regarding treatment of AD, the large RCTs which have assessed this outcome have not published their results. Initial analysis from the studies available indicate statins have no benefit on the outcome measure ADAS-Cog but have a significant beneficial effect on MMSE as an outcome. We need to await full results from the RCTs before we can be certain. In addition statins were not detrimental to cognition in either systematic review.