MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2140242218 · doi:10.1677/joe.1.06748

Obstetric and neonatal outcomes to recombinant porcine somatotropin administered in the last third of pregnancy to primiparous sows

2006· article· en· W2140242218 on OpenAlexaff
María Elena Trujillo Ortega, Daniel Mota‐Rojas, Rafael Hernández-González, E. Yadira Velázquez-Armenta, Alejandro A. Nava‐Ocampo, Ramiro Ramı́rez-Necoechea, M. Becerril-Herrera, Marı́a Alonso-Spilsbury

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Endocrinology · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBirth, Development, and Health
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Toronto
FundersSistema Nacional de Investigadores
KeywordsPregnancyMedicineRecombinant DNAObstetricsEndocrinologyInternal medicineBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study aimed to investigate whether the administration of recombinant porcine somatotropin (rpST) late in gestation is associated with increased rates of obstetric and neonatal complications in primiparous sows. From days 80 to 114 of gestational age, 20 primiparous sows were randomly assigned to receive an intramuscular injection of either saline or 6 mg rpST/day. Throughout pregnancy, sows were fed 2.5 to 3 kg/day of a corn-soybean diet (14 MJ ME/kg). Of 111 piglets born to control sows and 109 piglets born to treated sows, 8.1% and 17.4% piglets respectively died intrapartum (P=0.04). Glucose blood levels in sows and live-born piglets in the rpST-treated group were significantly higher than in their corresponding controls. Birth weight of live-born piglets in the treated group was 1.4 +/- 0.1 kg versus 1.3 +/- 0.1 kg in the control group (P<0.0001). Birth weight of piglets born dead was also higher in the former than in the latter group (P<0.0001). No evidence of teratogenicity was observed in either of the groups. In conclusion, rpST administration in late pregnancy to primparous sows increased the rate of neonatal deaths and was associated with higher blood glucose levels in both sows and piglets.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.356

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.279 · 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

Citations13
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of EndocrinologySame topicBirth, Development, and HealthFrench-language works237,207