MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4386484565 · doi:10.3168/jds.2022-23215

Ability of three dairy feed evaluation systems to predict postruminal outflows of nitrogenous compounds in dairy cows: A meta-analysis

2023· article· en· W4386484565 sur OpenAlexafffund
R. Martineau, D.R. Ouellet, D. Pellerin, J.L. Firkins, M.D. Hanigan, R.R. White, P.A. LaPierre, M.E. Van Amburgh, H. Lapierre

Notice bibliographique

RevueJournal of Dairy Science · 2023
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineAgricultural and Biological Sciences
ThématiqueRuminant Nutrition and Digestive Physiology
Établissements canadiensUniversité LavalAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Organismes subventionnairesAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
Mots-clésRumenConcordance correlation coefficientDairy cattleStatisticsMathematicsAnimal scienceStandard errorLinear regressionMean squared errorStandard deviationCoefficient of determinationChemistryBiologyFood science

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Adequate prediction of post-rumen outflow of protein fractions is the starting point for the determination of metabolizable protein supply in dairy cows. The objective of this meta-analysis was to compare the performance of 3 dairy feed programs [National Research Council ( NRC , 2001), Cornell Net Protein and Carbohydrate System ( CNCPS , v6.5.5), and National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine ( NASEM , 2021)] to predict outflows (g/d) of NAN, microbial N ( MiN ), nonammonia nonmicrobial N ( NANMN ). Predictions of rumen degradabilities (% of nutrient) of protein ( RDP ), NDF and starch were also evaluated. The data set included 1,294 treatment means from 312 digesta flow studies. The 3 feed programs were compared using the concordance correlation coefficient ( CCC ), the ratio of root mean square prediction error ( RMSPE ) on standard deviation of observed values ( RSR ), and the slope between observed and predicted values. Mean and linear biases were deemed biologically relevant and are discussed if higher than a threshold of 5% of the mean of observed values. The comparisons were done on observed values adjusted or not for the study effect; the adjustment had a small effect on the mean bias but the linear bias reflected a response to a dietary change rather than absolute predictions. For the absolute predictions of NAN and MiN, CNCPS had the best fit statistics (8% greater CCC; 6% lower RMSPE) without any bias; NRC and NASEM under-predicted NAN and MiN, and NASEM had an additional linear bias indicating that the under-prediction of MiN increased at increased predictions. For NANMN, fit statistics were similar among the 3 feed programs with no mean bias; however, the linear bias with NRC and CNCPS indicated under-prediction at low predictions and over-prediction at elevated predictions. On average, the CCC were smaller and RSR ratios were greater for MiN vs, NAN indicating increased prediction errors for MiN. For NAN responses to a dietary change, CNCPS also had the best predictions, although the mean bias with NASEM was not biologically relevant and the 3 feed programs did not present a linear bias. However, CNCPS, but not the 2 other feed programs, presented a linear bias for MiN, with responses being over-predicted at increased predictions. For NANMN, responses were over-predicted at increased predictions for the 3 feed programs, but to a lesser extent with NASEM. The site of sampling had an effect on the mean bias of MiN and NANMN in the 3 feed programs. The mean bias of MiN was higher in omasal than duodenal studies in the 3 feed programs (from 55 to 61 g/d) and this mean bias was twice as large when 15 N labeling was used as a microbial marker compared with purines. Such a difference was not observed for duodenal studies. The reasons underlying these systematic differences are not clear as the type of measurements used in the current meta-analysis does not allow to delineate if one site or one microbial marker is yielding the "true" post-rumen N outflows. Rumen degradabilities of protein ( RDP ) was under-predicted with CNCPS, and RDP responses to a dietary change was under-predicted by the 3 feed programs with increased RDP predictions. Rumen degradability of NDF was under-predicted and had poor fit statistics for NASEM compared with CNCPS. Fit statistics were similar between CNCPS and NASEM for rumen degradability of starch, but with an under-prediction of the response with NASEM and absolute values being over-predicted with CNCPS. Multivariate regression analyses showed that diet characteristics were correlated with prediction errors of N outflows in each feed program. Globally, compared with NAN and NANMN, residuals of MiN were correlated with several moderators in the 3 feed programs reflecting the complexity to measure and model this outflow. In addition, residuals of NANMN were correlated positively with RDP suggesting an overestimation of this parameter. In conclusion, although progress is still to be made to improve equations predicting post-rumen N outflows, the current feed programs provide sufficient precision and accuracy to predict metabolizable protein supply.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,029
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,023
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Méta-analyse · Signal consensuel: Méta-analyse
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,029
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,156

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0290,023
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0040,002
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0120,037
Bibliométrie0,0040,003
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,001
Communication savante0,0040,001
Science ouverte0,0030,002
Intégrité de la recherche0,0030,002
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0020,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,099
Tête enseignante GPT0,309
Écart entre enseignants0,210 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeMéta-analyse
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations8
Publié2023
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueJournal of Dairy Science→Même sujetRuminant Nutrition and Digestive Physiology→Travaux en français237 207→