Evaluation of unprotected and rumen-protected L-carnitine in vitro and in vivo
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of unprotected and rumen-protected L-carnitine through in vitro tests, rumen degradation tests, and in vivo tests. Twelve rumen-fistulated crossbred rams with similar body weights of 55 ± 3.6 kg and ages of 3 ± 0.2 yr old were divided into three treatment groups in a 3 × 3 Latin square design, G1 (basal diet with no additives), G2 (unprotected L-carnitine), or G3 (rumen-protected L-carnitine). Ruminal fluid and blood samples were collected before morning feeding on the last day of each experimental period (21 d). The percentage of L-carnitine remaining in the simulated rumen and abomasum and rumen increased with the increase in the wall material ratio (P < 0.05). L-carnitine supplementation decreased the plasma urea nitrogen concentration in the sheep (P < 0.05). G3 resulted in higher glutathione peroxidase (GSH-Px) and superoxide dismutase (SOD) activities as well as higher total antioxidant capacity (T-AOC) and lower malondialdehyde (MDA) concentrations in plasma than G1, and the difference was significant among the groups (P < 0.01). Thus, L-carnitine in the rumen could be protected by encapsulation for a certain time. Unprotected and rumen-protected L-carnitine supplementation effectively enhanced the antioxidant capacity of sheep, and the antioxidant capacity of sheep supplemented with rumen-protected L-carnitine was higher than that of sheep supplemented with unprotected L-carnitine.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 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".