Enhanced lumbar spine bone mineral content in piglets fed arachidonic acid and docosahexaenoic acid is modulated by severity of growth restriction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The infant born small size for gestational age (SGA) has low bone mass. Since dietary arachidonic acid (AA) and DHA enhance bone mass in normal-birth-weight piglets the objective of the present study was to test for such benefits in the SGA piglet. In the present 15 d study, two levels of dietary AA and DHA (6:1 ratio of AA:DHA diets, 0.6:0.1 or 1.2:0.2 g/100 g dietary fat) v. a control diet were tested for effects on growth, fatty acid status, whole-body and regional bone mineral content (BMC) and metabolism in SGA piglets categorised as either very low birth weight (VLBW; < or = 1.0 kg; n 12) or low birth weight (LBW; 1.1 to 1.2 kg; n 18). Differences in outcomes for each body weight category were detected using ANOVA with post hoc Bonferroni tests. Growth was not influenced by diet, yet the LBW piglets fed 0.6:0.1 AA and DHA as g/100 g fat had elevated BMC in the spine, whereas the VLBW piglets had higher BMC of the spine if fed the higher intake of AA and DHA. In both weight categories, the higher intake of AA and DHA lowered bone resorption relative to controls, whereas bone formation was unchanged. Tissue fatty acid concentrations reflected dietary AA and DHA, especially trabecular bone of VLBW piglets. Whether the enhanced lumbar spine BMC is due to enhanced Ca absorption and thus suppression of bone resorption remains to be established.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".