Evidence for validity of ileal digestibility coefficients in monogastrics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Measures of amino acid (AA) digestibility are used widely to estimate bioavailability of AA in feed and food ingredients for monogastric animals. In principle, the digestibility assay is simpler than in vivo assessments of AA bioavailability and allows for simultaneous estimation of the bioavailability of all AA in an experimental diet. It is generally assumed that absorption of intact AA in the hindgut of monogastrics is minimal, even though colonocytes do contain AA transporters and have been shown to absorb AA. This assumption is supported by the observation that infusion of AA into the hindgut does not improve nitrogen balance in monogastrics. In addition, growth performance of monogastrics is more highly correlated with ileal than faecal AA digestibility. Therefore, ileal digestibility coefficients provide better estimates of AA bioavailability than faecal digestibility coefficients. Measures of apparent ileal digestibility (AID) of AA are confounded with endogenous gut AA losses (EAAL). The curvilinear increase in AID of AA with increasing dietary AA level has been attributed to the relatively large contribution of EAAL to total ileal AA flows at low dietary AA levels. Subtracting basal EAAL from total ileal AA flows yields standardized ileal digestibility (SID) coefficients that appear to be more additive than AID coefficients in mixtures of feed ingredients. An implicit assumption when using SID AA coefficients in diet formulation is that the post-absorptive utilization of AA is not influenced by the dietary protein source. This assumption appears inappropriate when using feed or food ingredients that have been over-heated, induce large amounts of EAAL, or contain substantial amounts of fermentable fibre. Improved understanding of processes that contribute to the discrepancy between bioavailability and ileal digestibility will allow a more effective use of AA digestibility coefficients in diet formulation.
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 | 0.013 | 0.057 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".