The influence of a simulated digest of an equine dietary feed additive G's formula on contractile activity of gastric smooth muscle in vitro
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract G's Formula is a novel equine feed additive formulated to promote optimal GI function. The objective of this study was to determine whether the addition of a simulated digest of the composite feed additive G's Formula (FA) would alter the contractile response of gastric smooth muscle to acetylcholine (Ach). Smooth muscle strips from porcine stomachs were excised and attached to an isometric force transducer. An experiment was run to compare tissue contraction between tissue exposed to FA (FA; n = 8, simulated digest of FA was added to the bath) and control tissue (CO; n = 8, no additions made). Increasing concentrations of Ach were added into the bath such that the concentration increased from 10–8–10−3 M. Based on the analysis of these data, a difference between FA and CO was observed. Therefore, another trial was run which included a blank group (BL n = 6) in which the tissue was exposed to the simulated digest without FA. More CO (n = 5) and FA (n = 4) tissue was also run. Force was compared to baseline and between groups. In FA group, mean force for 1‐min following all Ach additions was higher than baseline (p < .05) and by 2‐min the integral‐under‐force/time curve (AUC) was higher than baseline from 10–7–10−3 M compared to lower concentrations of Ach in both CO (10−6 M for both) and BL (10−5 M and 10−6 M, respectively). By 8‐min AUC of all Ach concentrations were higher than baseline in FA compared to an Ach of 10−6 M in both CO and BL. A simulated digest of FA appears to sensitize gastric smooth muscle to Ach in vitro. FA may increase GI contractility, and the functional effect of this should be studied further in vivo.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".