MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2134324204 · doi:10.1258/la.2011.010167

Maternal separation and gastrointestinal transit time in neonate rats

2011· article· en· W2134324204 on OpenAlexafffund
Laura D.R. Davis, W. J. Spencer, David R. Mack, Illimar Altosaar

Bibliographic record

VenueLaboratory Animals · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiet and metabolism studies
Canadian institutionsChildren's Hospital of Eastern OntarioUniversity of Ottawa
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsBolus (digestion)Transit timeAnimal scienceFecesDefecationMedicineInternal medicineBiologyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Gastrointestinal transit times (GItts) were compared in separate litters of 10- and 15-day-old Sprague Dawley rats using barium sulphate. By tracking the leading front of the bolus on radiographs, the gastrocaecal transit times in pups were estimated. To measure the total GItt, the duration from orogastric gavage until an observable defecation of barium sulphate was recorded. The gastrocaecal times for 10-day-old pups maintained with their dam (n = 5) ranged from 4-5 h and those removed from the dam ranged from 2.5-5 h. For 15-day-old pups with their dam (n = 6) and without dam (n = 5), gastrocaecal times ranged from 4-6 h and 3.5-5 h, respectively. Ten-day-old pups that remained with the dam had a GItt of 13.8 ± 0.9 h and those kept in the absence of the dam had a time of 9.3 ± 0.7 h. This decrease (P < 0.05) in GItt in the absence of the dam was age-dependent in 10-day-old pups, and was not observed (P > 0.05) in 15-day-old pups. The results provide a basis, for the design of future studies involving neonate rat metabolism, to include maternal presence.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.242 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations4
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLaboratory AnimalsSame topicDiet and metabolism studiesFrench-language works237,207