MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2170859756 · doi:10.1194/jlr.m700317-jlr200

Artificial rearing with docosahexaenoic acid and n-6 docosapentaenoic acid alters rat tissue fatty acid composition

2007· article· en· W2170859756 on OpenAlexaff
Ken D. Stark, Sun‐Young Lim, Norman Salem

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Lipid Research · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicFatty Acid Research and Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsDocosapentaenoic acidDocosahexaenoic acidComposition (language)Food scienceBiologyFatty acidAnimal sciencePolyunsaturated fatty acidChemistryBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Docosahexaenoic acid (DHA; 22:6n-3) and n-6 docosapentaenoic acid (DPAn-6; 22:5n-6) are components of enriched animal feed and oil derived from Schizochytrium species microalgae. A one generation, artificial rearing model from day 2 after birth onward (AR) and a dam-reared control group (DAM) were used to examine DPAn-6 feeding on the fatty acid composition of various rat tissues at 15 weeks of age. Four AR diets were based on an n-3 fatty acid-deficient, 18:2n-6-based artificial milk with 22:6n-3 and/or 22:5n-6 added: AR-LA, AR-DHA, AR-DPAn-6, and AR-DHA+DPAn-6. The 22:6n-3 levels for the DAM, AR-DHA, and AR-DHA+DPAn-6 groups tended to be similar and higher than in the AR-LA and AR-DPAn-6 groups. The levels of 22:5n-6 tended to be higher only in the absence of dietary 22:6n-3. Adipose levels of 22:5n-6 was the only exception, as 22:5n-6 was significantly higher in AR-DHA+DPAn-6 than was observed in either the DAM or the AR-DHA group. There were no differences in 20:4n-6 levels within the tissues examined. In conclusion, 22:5n-6 replaces 22:6n-3 in the absence of 22:6n-3 only and does not appear to compete with 22:6n-3 in the presence of dietary 22:6n-3, suggesting that oils containing 22:5n-6 and 22:6n-3 may be a good dietary source of 22:6n-3.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesResearch integrity
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 score0.057
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.003
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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.397
Teacher spread0.331 · 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.

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

Citations34
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Lipid ResearchSame topicFatty Acid Research and HealthFrench-language works237,207