MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2027530308 · doi:10.1002/jsfa.1751

Nutrient utilisation in response to dietary supplementation of chicory inulin in growing pigs

2004· article· en· W2027530308 on OpenAlexaff
Todd C. Rideout, Ming Fan

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Science of Food and Agriculture · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Nutrition and Physiology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInulinNutrientFood scienceBiologyPrebioticMicronutrientBiotechnologyChemistryEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The digestive and post‐absorptive utilisation of dietary crude protein (CP), calcium (Ca) and phosphorus (P) in response to dietary supplementation of chicory inulin extract was investigated with six Yorkshire barrows with an average initial body weight of 30 kg. The barrows were fed a corn (maize) and soybean meal‐based diet containing 0 or 50 g kg−1 chicory inulin extract according to a two‐period crossover design. The digestive utilisation of CP, Ca and P did not differ (P > 0.05) between the control and the inulin‐fed pigs. Furthermore, the post‐absorptive urinary loss of CP and Ca was not affected (P > 0.05) by 50 g kg−1 chicory inulin supplementation. However, inulin supplementation improved post‐absorptive P utilisation through a reduction (P = 0.01) in urinary P loss by 1.6 percentage units compared with the control group. In conclusion, dietary supplementation of 50 g kg−1 chicory inulin does not affect dietary CP and Ca utilisation but does reduce urinary P loss in growing pigs. Copyright © 2004 Society of Chemical Industry

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.221 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations19
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Science of Food and AgricultureSame topicAnimal Nutrition and PhysiologyFrench-language works237,207