Wing-feather loss in white-feathered laying hens decreases pectoralis thickness but does not increase risk of keel bone fracture
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Feather loss in domestic chickens can occur due to wear and tear, disease or bird-to-bird pecking. Flight feather loss may decrease wing use, cause pectoral muscle loss and adversely impact the keel bone to which these muscles anchor. Feather loss and muscle weakness are hypothesized risk factors for keel bone fractures that are reported in up to 98% of chickens. We used ultrasound to measure changes in pectoral muscle thickness and X-rays to assess keel bone fracture prevalence following symmetric clipping of primary and secondary feathers in white- and brown-feathered birds. Four and six weeks after flight feather clipping, pectoralis thickness decreased by approximately 5%, while lower leg thickness increased by approximately 5% in white-feathered birds. This pectoralis thickness decrease may reflect wing disuse followed by muscle atrophy, while the increased leg thickness may reflect increased bipedal locomotion. The lack of effect on muscle thickness in brown-feathered hens was probably due to their decreased tendency for aerial locomotion. Finally, pectoralis thickness was not associated with keel bone fractures in either white- or brown-feathered birds. This suggests that the white-feathered strain was more sensitive to feather loss. Future prevention strategies should focus on birds most susceptible to muscle loss associated with flight feather damage.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 teacher head, 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".