The effects of thermal and light exposure on the development of broiler chicken leg musculature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Modified incubation factors affect skeletal musculature development of broiler chickens during embryonic and postnatal periods of development. These changes appear to have great influence on the proliferation of myoblasts and muscle growth after hatching. In this study, the histomorphological and -morphometric parameters of broiler chicken leg musculature, after thermal and light treatments during embryogenesis, were examined. The applied treatments included thermal manipulation (exposure of fertilized eggs to increased temperature), light manipulation (exposure of fertilized eggs to monochromatic green light) and simultaneous thermal and light manipulations. Following the specific parameters that were observed, it was determined that in the late postnatal period of development, treated groups have a larger diameter and smaller nucleocytoplasmic ratio of muscle cells compared to those of the control group, in which fertilized eggs were incubated at a constant temperature of 37.8?C, without light. Diameter was increased by 4.20%, 3.77% and 4.55% on day 42 after hatching in thermal, light and combined thermal and light treated groups, respectively, compared to the control. The nucleocytoplasmic ratio was increased by 37.5% on day 42 after hatching in the control group compared to all treated groups. The volume density of the muscle connective tissue was approximately at the same level between the groups. It can be concluded that thermal and light treatments stimulate the proliferation of myoblasts and enhance development and growth of leg muscles in broiler chickens.
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".