Study of broiler chicken responses to dietary protein and lysine using neural network and response surface models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
1. In this study, neural network (NN) and response surface (RS) models were developed to investigate the response [average daily gain (ADG) and feed efficiency (FE)] of young broiler chickens to dietary protein and lysine. For this purpose, data on their responses to dietary protein and lysine were extracted from the literature and separate NN and RS models were constructed. 2. Comparison between the NN and RS models revealed higher accuracy of prediction with the NN models compared to the RS models. In terms of R (2) values, the NN models developed for both ADG (R (2) = 0.923) and FE (R (2) = 0.904) were far superior to the RS models (R (2) for ADG = 0.511; R (2) for FE = 0.67). This suggests that the NN models can serve as an alternative option to conventional regression approaches including use of RS models. 3. Optimisation of the NN models developed for response to protein and lysine showed that diets containing 220.7 (g/kg of diet) protein and 12.85 (g/kg of diet) lysine maximise ADG, whereas maximum FE is achieved with diets containing 241.3 and 13.12 (g/kg) protein and lysine, respectively. Based on the optimisation results, optimal dietary protein and lysine concentrations for maximum FE in broiler chickens during the starting period are higher than for ADG.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".