MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2806601091 · doi:10.5539/jas.v10n7p485

Physiological and Immunological Effects of Rosemary Essential Oil in Growing Rabbit Diets

2018· article· en· W2806601091 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
M. R. EL-Gogary, Eman El-Said, Amira Mansour

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agricultural Science · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicRabbits: Nutrition, Reproduction, Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMalondialdehydeAntioxidantBasal (medicine)Animal scienceTestosterone (patch)Antioxidant capacityFood scienceImmunityChemistryImmune systemBiologyInternal medicineEndocrinologyBiochemistryImmunologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The efficacy of rosemary essential oil (REO), as feed additive, on growth and blood constituents of growing New Zealand White (NZW) rabbits was evaluated. Thirty six NZW were distributed into four groups: 1 control and 3 treated groups. The control was fed the basal diet, while feeds of other treatments were fortified with 0.25, 0.50 and 0.75 g/kg REO for groups 2, 3 and 4, respectively. The criteria of response were growth performance, carcass traits, blood glucose, plasma lipids, immunoglobulins, total antioxidant capacity (TAC), malondialdehyde (MDA) and testosterone concentrations. Results revealed that REO supplementation had no critical impacts on growth performance, carcass yeild or blood glucose. Rabbits recieving dietary REO exhibited lower lipid profile and higher immunoglobulins A than those of the control. The treated rabbits displayed significantly higher TAC than the basal group with the best reaction for those fed G3 diet. In a similar way, MDA was reduced essentially by including REO. There was a significant increase in testosterone levels due to added REO. The present results indicate that supplemental REO at 0.5 g/kg of diet has a beneficial impact on lipid profile, immunity and antioxidant status of rabbits.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.002

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.227 · 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 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

Citations17
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Agricultural ScienceSame topicRabbits: Nutrition, Reproduction, HealthFrench-language works237,207