MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2078849587 · doi:10.1017/s0022029900004088

Simulation analysis of substrate utilization in the mammary gland of lactating cows

2000· article· en· W2078849587 on OpenAlexaff
GENNADIJ G. CHEREPANOV, A. Danfær, J.P. Cant

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Dairy Research · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicMilk Quality and Mastitis in Dairy Cows
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSubstrate (aquarium)SecretionInternal medicineBlood flowEndocrinologyChemistryMammary glandMetabolismMicrocirculationStimulationBiologyBiochemistryMedicineEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A kinetic modelling approach was developed and investigated with the aim of predicting the utilization of major substrates in the mammary gland and milk secretion rates in the lactating cow at varying concentrations of substrate in arterial blood. The model includes kinetic equations of transport and metabolism of glucose, acetate, free amino acids and free fatty acids in secretory cells and a phenomenological description of autoregulation of local blood flow, in which an energy criterion of control has been used. The predicted relationships between the rate of milk secretion and glucose levels in the blood are consistent with experimental results. Differential stimulation of alpha-lactalbumin synthesis causes increments in local blood flow and milk secretion rate in the model. The results of the study suggest that there is no simple relationship between the level of substrates in the blood and milk yield and contents of fat and protein in milk. This is because the effect on production of varying patterns of substrate concentrations in the blood is mediated by network interactions at the level of secretory cell metabolism and microcirculation. However, dynamic modelling provides a rational framework for developing such predictive tools.

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)0.003
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.723
Threshold uncertainty score0.622

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.192
GPT teacher head0.396
Teacher spread0.204 · 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 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

Citations18
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Dairy ResearchSame topicMilk Quality and Mastitis in Dairy CowsFrench-language works237,207