Re-feeding rapidly restores protection against<i>Heligmosomoides bakeri</i>(Nematoda) in protein-deficient mice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study determined whether the timing of re-feeding of protein-deficient mice restored functional protection against the gastrointestinal nematode, Heligmosomoides bakeri. Balb/c mice were fed a 3% protein-deficient (PD) diet and then transferred to 24% protein-sufficient (PS) diet either on the day of primary infection, 10 days after the primary infection, on the day of challenge infection, or 7 days after the challenge infection. Control mice were fed either the PD or PS diet. Onset of challenge, but not primary, infection caused short-term body weight loss, anorexia and reduced feed efficiency. Weight gain was delayed in mice when re-feeding commenced on the day of challenge infection; alkaline phosphatase (ALP) was also elevated in these mice on day 28 post-challenge. In contrast, other re-feeding groups attained similar body weights to PS mice within 4 days and had similar ALP at day 28. Serum leptin was higher in PD than PS mice and positively associated with food intake. As expected, worm survival was prolonged in mice fed the PD diet. However, egg production and worm burdens were similar in all re-feeding groups to the PS mice, indicating that protein re-feeding during either the primary or challenge infection rapidly restored normal parasite clearance.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".