MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Metabolic availability of threonine in common foodstuffs in pigs

2010· article· en· W131551298 on OpenAlexaff
Crystal L Levesque, Soenke Moehn, Paul Pencharz, Ron O. Ball

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Nutrition and Physiology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity of Alberta
FundersAjinomoto Pharmaceuticals
KeywordsPhenylalanineNutrientFood scienceAmino acidChemistryThreonineAnimal scienceBiologyBiochemistryEnzymeSerine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Availability of amino acids (AA) in foodstuffs must be known to ensure adequate dietary supply. Ileal digestibility and protein digestibility amino acid score do not account for the true metabolic utilization of absorbed AA. Availability of AA in adult animals may be different from growing pigs. The metabolic availability (MA) of threonine (THR) in corn and barley was determined in 8 pregnant sows and 8 growing pigs using the indicator amino acid oxidation method ([1‐ * C] phenylalanine). Reference diets provided 40 – 80% of the THR requirement; other nutrients were set at 120% of requirement, and test diets provided THR at 80% of requirement. Tracer phenylalanine was given orally in 8 ½‐hourly meals and expired 13 CO 2 and 14 CO 2 was quantified. The MA of THR in corn and barley in sows was 88.0 and 89.3%, respectively. The MA of corn in growing pigs was 82.2%, similar to the published true ileal digestibility of THR in corn (82.0%). Metabolic availability is therefore, a good estimate of the true availability of AA in foodstuffs. Pregnant mature animals have a greater capacity to digest and utilize AA in common ingredients than growing animals. Funding: AB Pork, ON Pork, ALIDF, ACAAF, Ajinomoto.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.221 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe FASEB Journal→Same topicAnimal Nutrition and Physiology→French-language works237,207→