MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1965406690 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0090065

Attempted Experimental Reproduction of Porcine Periweaning-Failure-to-Thrive Syndrome Using Tissue Homogenates

2014· article· en· W1965406690 on OpenAlexaff
Yanyun Huang, John C. S. Harding

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Virus Infections Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInoculationFailure to thriveDiarrheaEtiologyBiologyAnorexiaInternal medicineMedicinePhysiologyImmunology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Porcine periweaning failure-to-thrive syndrome (PFTS) is characterized by anorexia and progressive debilitation of newly weaned pigs, of which some also demonstrate repetitive oral behaviour. Although no relevant porcine pathogens have been shown to be causally associated, inoculation of susceptible pigs using tissue homogenates is needed to rule out infectious etiologies. Eight snatched-farrowed porcine-colostrum-deprived (SF-pCD) pigs were inoculated with tissue homogenates made from PFTS-affected pigs orally, or combined orally, intraperitoneally (i.p.) and intramuscularly (i.m.) at day (D) 14 of age (INOC). On D21, i.p. and i.m. inoculation were repeated. Four sham-inoculated pigs served as control (CTRL). Three INOC pigs developed mixed bacterial septicemia between the first and second inoculation. All other pigs survived until termination on D49. Average daily gain (ADG) and the frequencies of diarrhea did not differ between INOC and CTRL pigs D14 and D29. Additionally, the progressive debilitation characteristic of PFTS was not observed in any pig, and repetitive oral behaviour was observed in both groups. In conclusion, PFTS was not experimentally reproduced by the current experimental approach providing evidence that PFTS may not have an infectious etiology.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.414

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.180 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations12
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONESame topicAnimal Virus Infections StudiesFrench-language works237,207