MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2954843486 · doi:10.1128/aem.00402-19

<i>Bacillus subtilis</i> Strain DSM 29784 Modulates the Cecal Microbiome, Concentration of Short-Chain Fatty Acids, and Apparent Retention of Dietary Components in Shaver White Chickens during Grower, Developer, and Laying Phases

2019· article· en· W2954843486 on OpenAlexafffund
M. Neijat, Jemaneh Habtewold, R.B. Shirley, A Welsher, J Barton, Pascal Thiery, Elijah G. Kiarie

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied and Environmental Microbiology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Nutrition and Physiology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersOntario Agri-Food Innovation AllianceAdisseo France
KeywordsBacillus subtilisStrain (injury)Food scienceMicrobiomeBiologyBacterial strainFatty acidChemistryBiochemistryMicrobiologyBacteriaAnatomyBioinformatics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In egg-laying chickens, the trend in the move away from the cage to alternative housing systems and restriction in antimicrobial use requires alternative approaches to maintain health and prevent diseases. There is increased research and commercial interest toward alternative gut health solutions while improving the performance and product safety in poultry production systems. One such approach, in recognition of the importance of the gut microbial community, is the use of microbes as feed supplements (such as probiotics). Unlike meat-type chickens, studies assessing the efficacy of such microbial supplements are limited for egg-laying chickens. Thus, by conducting a comprehensive assessment of the hen microbiota in response to various levels of B. subtilis DSM 29784 during the pullet phase (grower and developer) and the layer phase, the present study demonstrates the importance of direct-fed microbes in modulating gut microbiome, which may relate to improved performance efficiency in the pullet and layer phases.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.835
Threshold uncertainty score0.268

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.176
Teacher spread0.161 · 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.

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

Citations60
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueApplied and Environmental MicrobiologySame topicAnimal Nutrition and PhysiologyFrench-language works237,207