MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2057166194 · doi:10.4141/a02-073

Histological alterations of intestinal villi in growing pigs fed soybean and pigeon pea seed meals

2003· article· en· W2057166194 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Apichai Mekbungwan, Koh‐en Yamauchi, Narin Thongwittaya

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Animal Science · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicFood composition and properties
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologySoybean mealIntestinal villusMealAnimal scienceFood scienceSmall intestineBiochemistryRaw material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To clarify whether specific damage to intestinal tissue is induced by feeding pigs pigeon pea seed meal (PM), growing pigs were fed soybean meal (SM) or PM, and intestinal villi and epithelial cells on the tip of villi were compared using light and electron microscopy. Fifteen 85-d-old pigs were allotted to three groups of five animals each. Within each group, a pig was randomly assigned to: (1) a conventional (control) diet, (2) SM or (3) raw PM for 10 d. At the end of the experiment three pigs per group were randomly slaughtered. Intestinal villus height, cell area and cell mitosis tended to be highest in the SM group and lowest in the PM group. Dome-like cells were seen on the surface of villi in SM group, but flat cells were observed in the PM group. These histological data suggest that intestinal villi are much more activated in pigs fed SM than PM. However, the fact that physical damage was not observed on the tips of villi in pigs fed PM suggests that raw PM could be used as a plant protein source by adding it as a supplement to conventional diets. Key words: Pigeon pea, soybean, intestinal villi, pig

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.851
Threshold uncertainty score0.245

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.222 · 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

Citations17
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Animal ScienceSame topicFood composition and propertiesFrench-language works237,207