Review: Mammary development in swine: effects of hormonal status, nutrition and management
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Farmer, C. 2013. Review: Mammary development in swine: effects of hormonal status, nutrition and management. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 93: 1-7. There are three phases of rapid mammary accretion in swine, namely, from 90 d of age until puberty, during the last third of gestation and throughout lactation. Nutrition, endocrine status and management of gilts or sows during those periods can affect mammary development. More specifically, in growing gilts, feed restriction as of 90 d of age hinders mammary development and either supplying the phytoestrogen genistein or increasing circulating concentrations of prolactin stimulates mammogenesis. In late gestation, inhibition of relaxin or prolactin drastically diminishes mammary development and overly increasing dietary energy has a detrimental effect on mammogenesis. It also appears that feeding of the gestating sow can affect the mammary development of her offspring once it reaches puberty. Various management factors such as litter size, nursing intensity and use or non-use of a teat in the previous lactation will affect the amount of mammary tissue present at the end of lactation. Mammary development is followed by the essential process of involution whereby a rapid and drastic regression in parenchymal tissue takes place. It can occur either after weaning or in early lactation when teats are not being regularly suckled. Despite our current knowledge, much remains to be learned in order to develop the best management strategies for replacement gilts, and gestating and lactating sows that will maximize their milk production.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 it