Neurophysiological development of newborn pigs: effect of the sow’s parity number in eutocic farrowings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of the present study was to determine the effect of sow parity on neonatal piglet health and vitality at birth. We evaluated 1505 neonate piglets, which were born of York–Landrace sows with the following parity distribution: primiparous (n = 202), second (n = 207), third (n = 211), fourth (n = 222), fifth (n = 225), sixth (n = 218) and seventh parity (n = 220). Piglets born to primiparous and seventh-parity sows had the lowest and highest birthweights respectively, and showed the most marked imbalances in blood gas exchanges, acid–base balance and energy profiles, as well as the highest percentage of severe meconium staining of the skin and the lowest vitality scores (P < 0.05). In contrast, the neonates from the fourth-parity sows had the highest vitality scores, required less time to reach the mother’s teat, and had the highest percentage of adhered umbilical cords and newborns with dyspnoea, apnoea and abnormal heartbeat (P < 0.05). The results of this study suggest that during eutocic farrowings, the sow’s parity number has the following effects on newborn piglets: reduced vigour and longer latencies to begin breathing, stand and take the teat. These effects are due to the presence of imbalances in gas exchanges, the acid–base balance and energy profiles that occurred when the mother was a primiparous or older sow. These signs indicate that the newborn piglet survived a process of intrapartum asphyxia.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".