MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2596416085 · doi:10.1139/cjas-2016-0083

Plasma leptin as a predictor for carcass composition in growing lambs

2016· article· en· W2596416085 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
E. Kuźnicka, M. Gabryszuk, Małgorzata Kunowska‐Slósarz, Marcin Gołębiewski, Marek Balcerak

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Animal Science · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicRegulation of Appetite and Obesity
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLeptinBody weightEndocrinologyAnimal scienceInternal medicineComposition (language)Plasma concentrationObesityBiologyChemistryMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The experiment was conducted on 30 single born Polish Merino ram lambs. At the age of 112 d, 10 ram lambs were slaughtered at 20 kg (group 1), 25 kg (group 2), and 30 kg (group 3) live weight. Plasma leptin increased between 20 and 25 kg, as well as 25 and 30 kg live weight. The differences between group 1 vs. group 3 and group 2 vs. group 3 were statistically important (P < 0.001). The lack of differences in meat content of the pelvic limb between the groups and, at the same time, the lower fat content (P < 0.001) in group 1, plus the higher fat content of the two remaining groups, are evidence of the higher fatness of carcasses in groups 2 and 3. The fat tissues except the subcutaneous fat were significantly related with the leptin concentrations at slaughter. The leptin concentration of lambs slaughtered at 30 kg live weight surpassed significantly the values noted in groups 1 and 2 (P < 0.001). The correlations between leptin and body composition indicate that plasma leptin concentration at 30 kg live weight can be a predictor of body fat. The correlation of meat weight with leptin concentration has shown no statistical differences.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.998
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.235 · 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 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

Citations3
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Animal Science→Same topicRegulation of Appetite and Obesity→French-language works237,207→