MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2974342667 · doi:10.1139/cjas-2018-0248

Evaluation of the effect of β-mannanase supplementation and mannans on nursery pig growth performance and serum acute-phase protein concentrations

2019· article· en· W2974342667 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Nichole F. Huntley, Stacie A Gould, John F. Patience

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Animal Science · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Nutrition and Physiology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMannanHaptoglobinAcute-phase proteinImmune systemFactorial experimentBody weightInternal medicineBiologyEndocrinologyChemistryAnimal scienceImmunologyMedicineBiochemistryPolysaccharideInflammation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective was to evaluate the effects of dietary mannan and β-mannanase supplementation on growth performance and serum acute-phase proteins in nursery pigs. Pigs (n = 480) were blocked by initial body weight (6.6 ± 0.4 kg), and 12 pens per treatment were randomly assigned to one of four treatments in a 2 × 2 factorial arrangement for 28 d. Two levels of dietary mannan (0.4% vs. 2.8%) were offered with and without 0.05% endo-1,4-β-mannanase. Serum was collected (one pig per pen) for haptoglobin and C-reactive protein (CRP) analysis on days 0 and 28. There were no significant interactions between mannan level and β-mannanase supplementation. High-mannan diet decreased average daily gain (P = 0.027) and average daily feed intake (P = 0.024) compared with low-mannan diets with no effect of β-mannanase (P > 0.10). Haptoglobin and CRP were not affected by mannan level or β-mannanase supplementation (P ≥ 0.160). Therefore, dietary β-mannans as high as 2.8% did not induce a systemic innate immune response. Thus, the levels of β-mannan found in practical diets (<2%) are unlikely to induce an immune response; therefore, supplementation of β-mannanase to avoid this response is not warranted.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.250 · 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

Citations6
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Animal ScienceSame topicAnimal Nutrition and PhysiologyFrench-language works237,207