The effects of microencapsulated compounds supplementation on growth performance, immune cells, and rectal temperature in weaned pigs by lipopolysaccharides
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A total of forty 21-d-old weaned and crossbred pigs [(Landrace × Yorkshire) × Duroc] with an average initial body weight of 4.43 ± 1.41 kg were used for this 2 wk experiment. There were four treatments. Each treatment had 10 replicates with five pigs per pen. Treatments were as follows: (1) microencapsulated complex of organic acids and essential oils (MOE)−, lipopolysaccharide (LPS)+; (2) MOE−, LPS−; (3) 0.2% MOE+, LPS+; and (4) 0.2% MOE+, LPS−. Final body weight, body weight gain, average daily gain, and average daily feed intake were significantly different between MOE+ and MOE− (P < 0.05). Based on the results of MOE+, crude protein digestibility was significantly higher than for MOE− (P < 0.05). However, LPS+ was significantly higher than LPS− in the 4, 8, 12, and 16 h (P < 0.05). From a comparison of blood profiles, cortisol, tumor necrosis factor-α, interleukin-1β, neutrophil, lymphocyte, red blood cell, hemoglobin, and hematocrit were significantly different between LPS+ and LPS− (P < 0.05). The immunoglobulin G, white blood cell, and eosinophil were significantly different between LPS and MOE treatments (P < 0.05). In summary, MOE had a potentially good effect on growth performance and some part of immune response in weaned pigs.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".