MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2043912441 · doi:10.1139/w06-053

Dietary fructooligosaccharides alter the cultivable faecal population of rats but do not stimulate the growth of intestinal bifidobacteria

2006· article· en· W2043912441 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
C Gourgue-Jeannot, Martin Kalmokoff, E Kheradpir, Judy Kwan, B. Lampi, Milton Μ. McAllister, Stephen P.J. Brooks

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Microbiology · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicMicrobial Metabolites in Food Biotechnology
Canadian institutionsHealth Canada
FundersHealth Canada
KeywordsFructooligosaccharideInulinBiologyPrebioticFructanClostridiaFecesFood scienceBifidobacteriumMicrobiologyBacteriaClostridiumPopulationFructoseLactobacillusFermentation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The effect of fructans on the cultivable faecal community of Bio Breeding rats fed diets containing 5% (m/v) food-grade fructooligosaccharide (FOS) was investigated. Culturing of faecal material using chicory inulin as the sole carbohydrate source revealed the presence of a greater diversity of inulin-utilizing bacterial species in FOS-fed rats as compared with the control rats, although both contained species which effectively utilized inulin. The majority of cultivable inulin-utilizing species fell within the Clostridium coccoides group and Clostridium leptum subgroup, some of which were related to previously cultured butyrate-producing bacteria from the intestines of various animals. The impact of FOS on the growth of the indigenous bifidobacteria community and three inulin-utilizing isolates was assessed using real-time polymerase chain reaction. While dietary FOS was found to stimulate the growth of all three inulin-utilizing isolates, no growth stimulation of the indigenous bifidobacteria community occurred over the duration of the feeding trial.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.985

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.217 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations16
Published2006
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of MicrobiologySame topicMicrobial Metabolites in Food BiotechnologyFrench-language works237,207