Rapid Wound Healing In African Catfish, Clarias Gariepinus, Fed Diets Supplemented With Ascorbic Acid
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Wound healing in African catfish, Clarias gariepinus, fed diets supplemented with ascorbic acid was studied under laboratory conditions. Fish weighing approximately 80-110 g were stocked in 500 l aquaria in a static water system and fed one of five test diets containing different levels of microencapsulated ascorbic acid (0, 0.06, 0.10, 0.30 and 0.70 g AsA/100 g feed). After two weeks, all experimental fish were wounded by making a 1 x 1 cm dorso-lateral incision above the lateral line of the fish. Wounded tissues were sampled for histopathological analysis 4, 8, 24, 48 and 96 hours, 6, 8, 10, 12 and 14 days after making the incision. There were significant differences in weight gain, specific growth rate (SGR) and feed conversion ratio among the dietary treatments. Weight gain and SGR of fish fed the ascorbic acid free diet were lower than those of fish fed diets supplemented with ascorbic acid. The wound healing response showed a direct correlation to ascorbate level in the diet. Fibroblasts were present at 96 h irrespective of the ascorbic acid level. As 14 days, fish fed no ascorbic acid had some regeneration of muscle tissues, whereas fish fed diets containing supplemental ascorbic acid had a normal epidermis, dermis and muscle structure. There was no mortality during the experimental period, and fish fed ascorbic acid free diets did not exhibit any deficiency signs. Results of this study indicate that about 0.10-0.70 g AsA/100 g feed is needed for wound repair in African catfish.
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".