Effects of dietary fiber content on energetics in nonreproductive and reproductive Brandt’s voles (<i>Lasiopodomys brandtii</i>)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Food quality can affect many physiological characteristics in small mammals. Reproduction is a highly energy-demanding period especially for the females to produce and feed their offspring. We hypothesized that energy intake was constrained at different levels in nonreproductive and reproductive females and thus they adopted diverse energy strategies in response to diet changes. Here, we tested the effects of low fiber diet (3.5% vs. 12.4%) on energy intake and thermogenesis in nonreproductive and reproductive Brandt’s voles (Lasiopodomys brandtii (Radde, 1861)), a herbivorous species. We found that the voles decreased food intake while keeping a stable digestible energy intake (DEI) in response to the low fiber diet, but DEI was increased in reproductive voles at peak lactation. Uncoupling protein 1 content in brown adipose tissue decreased in nonreproductive voles, but was stable in reproductive voles on the low fiber diet. Litter mass on day 18 of age tended to increase in the low fiber group compared with that in the control group. Our findings demonstrate that the voles have a target intake to maintain energy balance when diet composition changes and energy intake may be constrained at a high level for the reproductive voles to improve their offspring’s fitness.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".