MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3193879329 · doi:10.1016/j.animal.2021.100345

Impact of volume, immunoglobulin G concentration, and feeding method of colostrum product on neonatal nursing behavior and transfer of passive immunity in beef calves

2021· article· en· W3193879329 on OpenAlexafffund
Lisa Gamsjäger, Deborah M. Haines, Edmond A. Pajor, Morris Levy, M. Claire Windeyer

Bibliographic record

Venueanimal · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldVeterinary
TopicAnimal health and immunology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of SaskatchewanUniversity of Calgary
FundersFaculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of CalgaryAmerican College of Veterinary Internal Medicine
KeywordsColostrumMedicinePassive immunityAnimal scienceBirth weightImmunoglobulin GAntibodyBiologyPregnancyImmunology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

One-third of beef calves fail to achieve adequate transfer of passive immunity (TPI) through timely ingestion of colostrum, which substantially increases their risk of preweaning morbidity and mortality. Two randomized clinical trials were designed to assess the impact of volume, immunoglobulin G (IgG) concentration, and feeding method of colostrum product on neonatal nursing behavior and TPI. In Trial 1, 47 calves were randomly assigned to receive one of three colostrum interventions by oro-esophageal tube feeder (OET): 1 L with 100 g/L IgG, 1.4 L with 70 g/L IgG, or 2 L with 100 g/L IgG. In Trial 2, 29 calves were randomly assigned to be fed 1 L of colostrum product with 100 g/L IgG by either nipple bottle (NB) or OET. Colostrum intervention (i.e. feeding of colostrum product) occurred within 60 minutes of birth. Cow-calf pairs were monitored by video surveillance in individual stalls for 24 h. Dam colostrum was collected at 10 minutes and calf serum was collected at 24-36 h after birth to assess IgG concentration. Differences among colostrum intervention groups on latency to stand and nurse were analyzed using Kaplan-Meier survival curves and Cox proportional hazard models. The impact of colostrum intervention group on TPI was assessed using multivariable linear regression modeling. In Trial 1, calves fed 1.4 L with 70 g/L IgG by OET nursed from their dams statistically significantly earlier compared to calves fed 1 L with 100 g/L IgG (P = 0.003) and calves fed 2 L with 100 g/L IgG (P = 0.008). Six of the 15 calves in the NB group in Trial 2 refused to consume part of the colostrum feeding offered by bottle and required follow-up tube feeding of the remaining volume. These calves were analyzed as a separate group (NB + OET). Calves fed 1 L by NB stood and nursed statistically significantly earlier than calves fed by OET (P = 0.005) or a combination of NB + OET (P = 0.003). Calf serum IgG concentrations were not statistically significantly different among colostrum intervention groups (P > 0.1). Overall, the colostrum interventions assessed in this study led to only one calf with failed TPI. While statistically significant differences in serum IgG concentrations were not detected in this study, subsequent nursing behavior did vary and was improved by feeding a moderate volume (1.4 L with 70 g/L IgG) of colostrum when using an OET, and by using the NB when feeding a smaller volume (1 L with 100 g/L IgG).

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.376
Teacher spread0.338 · 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

Citations18
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueanimalSame topicAnimal health and immunologyFrench-language works237,207