MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2134647004 · doi:10.1186/1751-0147-51-39

Ruminal acidosis and the rapid onset of ruminal parakeratosis in a mature dairy cow: a case report

2009· article· en· W2134647004 on OpenAlexafffund
M.A. Steele, Ousama AlZahal, Sarah E. Hook, J. Croom, B.W. McBride

Bibliographic record

VenueActa veterinaria Scandinavica · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicRuminant Nutrition and Digestive Physiology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of Guelph
KeywordsRumenAcidosisAnimal scienceBiologyChemistryBiochemistryEndocrinologyFermentation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A mature dairy cow was transitioned from a high forage (100% forage) to a high-grain (79% grain) diet over seven days. Continuous ruminal pH recordings were utilized to diagnose the severity of ruminal acidosis. Additionally, blood and rumen papillae biopsies were collected to describe the structural and functional adaptations of the rumen epithelium. On the final day of the grain challenge, the daily mean ruminal pH was 5.41+/-0.09 with a minimum of 4.89 and a maximum of 6.31. Ruminal pH was under 5.0 for 130 minutes (2.17 hours) which is characterized as the acute form of ruminal acidosis in cattle. The grain challenge increased blood beta-hydroxybutyrate by 1.8 times and rumen papillae mRNA expression of 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl-coenzyme A synthase by 1.6 times. Ultrastructural and histological adaptations of the rumen epithelium were imaged by scanning electron and light microscopy. Rumen papillae from the high grain diet displayed extensive sloughing of the stratum corneum and compromised cell adhesion as large gaps were apparent between cells throughout the strata. This case report represents a rare documentation of how the rumen epithelium alters its function and structure during the initial stage of acute acidosis.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.871
Threshold uncertainty score0.292

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.232 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations143
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueActa veterinaria ScandinavicaSame topicRuminant Nutrition and Digestive PhysiologyFrench-language works237,207