MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1982578579 · doi:10.3168/jds.2006-534

A Mathematical Approach to Predicting Biological Values from Ruminal pH Measurements

2007· review· en· W1982578579 on OpenAlexaff
Ousama AlZahal, E. Kebreab, J. France, B.W. McBride

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Dairy Science · 2007
Typereview
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicRuminant Nutrition and Digestive Physiology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChemistryAnimal scienceMathematicsBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The use of continuous recording to monitor ruminal pH has received growing attention. Continuous ruminal pH data are usually summarized for each 24-h period for each cow by calculating mean pH, maximum pH, minimum pH, amount of time (min/d) below pH 5.6 and 6.0, and area (time x pH) below pH 5.6 and 6.0. In this study, a novel approach to analyzing ruminal pH is introduced. A database from 6 published studies encompassing 8 trials and 13 different treatment groups was used in a meta-analysis. Trials were selected on their ability to obtain daily pH measurements and diet analyses. A total of 613 records met the criteria for inclusion in the meta-analysis. The database was subdivided based on nonfiber carbohydrate (NFC, % of dry matter) level in the diet into low (32 to 36%, n = 105), moderate (37 to 39%, n = 326), and high NFC (>40%, n = 159). From each day of recording and for each cow, the amount of time below multiple pH points from 5.0 to 7.6 using a 0.2-unit pH interval (i.e., 5.0, 5.2, ...., and 7.6) was calculated. Sigmoidal curves were constructed to summarize daily ruminal pH records using calculated time below (min/d) as the y-variate and pH cutoff point as the x-variate. The objectives of this study were to 1) collate continuously recorded ruminal pH data from studies that used a dietary regimen to induce pH depression, 2) assess mathematical equations and subject the collated data to analysis, 3) determine the most suitable equation or equations to describe the data, and 4) derive values from the selected equation or equations that may have biological implication across dietary treatments. The analysis was performed on pooled data in each category using nonlinear modeling. Trial effect was considered as fixed and also as random. Four growth functions were considered: spline lines, Morgan, Richards, and logistic. All models had 4 parameters except the logistic equation, which had 3. The logistic and the Richards equations gave a better fit to the data than did the Morgan and spline lines. All parameter estimates were significant except for 1 parameter for the spline lines. The logistic equation uses the least number of parameters and consistently gave a better prediction. Therefore, the logistic is considered the best option to use in describing pH curves. Model-derived values that have biological interpretation such as curve inflection point, curve slope, and time and area below pH 5.6 and 6.0 were calculated for all models. Diets with higher NFC content resulted in greater depression in ruminal pH. Degree of drop in pH can be described by a shift of pH curve position toward the lower pH range, hence, by greater values of predicted time and area below most critical pH cut-off points. This shift can also be identified by a decrease in curve inflection point and curve slope. Therefore, we suggest using these model-derived biological values to summarize continuously recorded pH data. For example, the inflection points for high, moderate, and low NFC levels were 1.01, 1.17, and 1.28; respectively. This approach permits comparison of pH data across studies and helps quantify dietary effects on ruminal pH.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.044

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.229
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.125 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations80
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Dairy ScienceSame topicRuminant Nutrition and Digestive PhysiologyFrench-language works237,207