The Effects of Prenatal Diet on Calf Performance and Perspectives for Fetal Programming Studies: A Meta-Analytical Investigation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This meta-analysis aimed to identify knowledge gaps in the scientific literature on future fetal-programming studies and to investigate the factors that determine the performance of beef cows and their offspring. A dataset composed of 35 publications was used. The prenatal diet, body weight (BW), average daily gain (ADG) during pregnancy, and calf sex were elicited as possible modulators of the beef cows and their offspring performance. Then, the correlations between these variables and the outcomes of interest were investigated. A mixed multiple linear regression procedure was used to evaluate the relationships between the responses and all the possible explanatory variables. A knowledge gap was observed in studies focused on zebu animals, with respect to the offspring sex and the consequences of prenatal nutrition in early pregnancy. The absence of studies considering the possible effects promoted by the interactions between the different stressors' sources during pregnancy was also detected. A regression analysis showed that prenatal diets with higher levels of protein improved the ADG of pregnant beef cows and that heavier cows give birth to heavier calves. Variations in the BW at weaning were related to the BW at birth and calf sex. Therefore, this research reinforces the importance of monitoring the prenatal nutrition of beef cows.
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 | 0.023 | 0.046 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.035 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".