MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1929809378

Effect of casein and propionate supply on whole body protein metabolism in lactating dairy cows

2006· preprint· en· W1929809378 on OpenAlexaff
G. Raggio, G. E. Lobley, Sophie Lemosquet, Henri Rulquin, H. Lapierre

Bibliographic record

VenueHAL (Le Centre pour la Communication Scientifique Directe) · 2006
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMuscle metabolism and nutrition
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPropionateRumenAnimal scienceSilageChemistrySodium bicarbonateCaseinDuodenumMetabolismLatin squareInternal medicineBiochemistryBiologyMedicineFermentation
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The effects of Casein (Cas) and propionate (C3) on whole body (WB) leucine (Leu) metabolism were determined in three multiparous Holstein cows, fitted with both duodenum and rumen cannulas, used in a Youden replicated square with 14-d periods. Cows were fed a grass silage-based diet estimated to supply 124.1 MJ d-1 of NEL and 1593 g d-1 of protein digested in the intestine. Cas (743 g d-1 in the duodenum) and C3 (1041 g d-1 in the rumen) infusions were tested in a factorial arrangement. For each period, on day 11, L[1–13C] leucine (4.3 mmol h-1) and on day 13, [13C] sodium bicarbonate (4.2 mmol h-1) were infused into a jugular vein. Blood samples were taken from a carotid artery to measure enrichments of 13CO2 (days 11 and 13) and of 13C[4-methyl 2-oxopentanoate] (MOP, day 11). Both Cas and C3 treatments separately increased milk protein concentration and yield, but only Cas treatments increased milk yield (18%). The overall increments in Leu irreversible loss rate (ILR) (26%), oxidation (146%), protein s...

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.220 · 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

Citations34
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHAL (Le Centre pour la Communication Scientifique Directe)→Same topicMuscle metabolism and nutrition→French-language works237,207→