The influence of litter birth weight phenotype on embryonic and placental development at day 30 of gestation in multiparous purebred Large White sows
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to understand the intrauterine biological processes associated with the low litter birth weight phenotype in pigs. Analyses were conducted on reproductive data from a purebred Large White maternal line to identify sows (>2 parities) with repeatable high or low litter birth weight phenotype (HLBWP or LLBWP). A total of 40 sows were selected (n = 20 HLBWP and n = 20 LLBWP) and bred with semen from purebred Large White boars of proven fertility. Sows were euthanized on day 28-30 of gestation (day 29.5 ± 0.6) and samples of placenta and embryos collected. Total number of embryos (TNE), embryonic weight (EW), embryonic viability, and crown-rump (CRL) measurements were recorded, along with the ovulation rate (OR) and allantochorionic fluid volume (AFV). No significant difference was detected (P > 0.05) in OR, TNE, and number of viable embryos on day 30 of gestation between the two groups. There was no significant difference in EW (LLBWP: 0.80 ± 0.05 g; HLBWP: 0.88 ± 0.04 g, P = 0.18) or CRL (LLBWP: 21.5 ± 0.7 mm; HLBWP: 21.9 ± 0.68 mm, P = 0.46). Placental development represented by the average AFV was significantly lower in the LLBWP compared to HLBWP (LLBWP: 131 ± 9.82 mL; HLBWP: 149 ± 9.39 mL, P = 0.03). In conclusion, placental development may be the main factor causing lower BW of entire litters in LLBWP sows.
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.
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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it