MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2088360816 · doi:10.3168/jds.2011-4171

Ability of commercially available dairy ration programs to predict duodenal flows of protein and essential amino acids in dairy cows

2012· article· en· W2088360816 on OpenAlexaff
D. Pacheco, R. A. Patton, C. Parys, H. Lapierre

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Dairy Science · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicRuminant Nutrition and Digestive Physiology
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
FundersEvonik IndustriesUniversity of Pennsylvania
KeywordsRumenAnimal scienceSilageMean squared errorMathematicsMean flowResearch councilStatisticsChemistryBiologyFood sciencePhysicsThermodynamics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective of this analysis was to compare the rumen submodel predictions of 4 commonly used dairy ration programs to observed values of duodenal flows of crude protein (CP), protein fractions, and essential AA (EAA). The literature was searched and 40 studies, including 154 diets, were used to compare observed values with those predicted by AminoCow (AC), Agricultural Modeling and Training Systems (AMTS), Cornell-Penn-Miner (CPM), and National Research Council 2001 (NRC) models. The models were evaluated based on their ability to predict the mean, their root mean square prediction error (RMSPE), error bias, and adequacy of regression equations for each protein fraction. The models predicted the mean duodenal CP flow within 5%, with more than 90% of the variation due to random disturbance. The models also predicted within 5% the mean microbial CP flow except CPM, which overestimated it by 27%. Only NRC, however, predicted mean rumen-undegraded protein (RUP) flows within 5%, whereas AC and AMTS underpredicted it by 8 to 9% and CPM by 24%. Regarding duodenal flows of individual AA, across all diets, CPM predicted substantially greater (>10%) mean flows of Arg, His, Ile, Met, and Lys; AMTS predicted greater flow for Arg and Met, whereas AC and NRC estimations were, on average, within 10% of observed values. Overpredictions by the CPM model were mainly related to mean bias, whereas the NRC model had the highest proportion of bias in random disturbance for flows of EAA. Models tended to predict mean flows of EAA more accurately on corn silage and alfalfa diets than on grass-based diets, more accurately on corn grain-based diets than on non-corn-based diets, and finally more accurately in the mid range of diet types. The 4 models were accurate at predicting mean dry matter intake. The AC, AMTS, and NRC models were all sufficiently accurate to be used for balancing EAA in dairy rations under field conditions.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.231 · 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

Citations39
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Dairy ScienceSame topicRuminant Nutrition and Digestive PhysiologyFrench-language works237,207