MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4296636179 · doi:10.1093/jas/skac247.151

166 A Comparison of key Methodologies Used to Quantify Protein Quality in Mammals: Ileal Digestibility, Indicator Amino Acid Oxidation, and in Vitro Digestibility

2022· article· en· W4296636179 on OpenAlexaff
Cara Cargo-Froom, Daniel A Columbus, Elijah G. Kiarie, Christopher P. F. Marinangeli, Anna‐Kate Shoveller

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Animal Science · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Nutrition and Physiology
Canadian institutionsGenome PrairieUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLatin squareProtein qualityMethionineAmino acidAnimal scienceChemistryProtein digestibilityBiochemistryBiologyFermentation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract There are several methodologies which can be used to measure protein quality of an ingredient, however, the results of these studies are generally not compared to one another. The objectives of these studies were to 1) determine standardized ileal digestibility (SID) and in vitro digestibility coefficients for protein and amino acids (AA) from select pulses; 2) determine metabolic availability (MA) of methionine (Met) from field peas and faba beans; and, 3) compare digestibility coefficients determined via different methods. To determine SID of pulses, ileal cannulated barrows were randomly assigned to diets in a 4×4 Latin square. A nitrogen free diet was used to measure basal endogenous losses of AA and protein. Metabolic availability was determined via indicator AA oxidation by applying the principle of slope-ratio assay to F13CO2 from phenylalanine oxidation quantified through CO2 collection during breath collection using indirect calorimetry with barrows randomly assigned to diets in a 10×10 Latin square. Dietary treatments were formulated to include graded levels of Met: crystalline AA diets (Met inclusion of 50, 60, 70, and 80% of requirement), and pulse test diets (Met inclusion of 60, 70, and 80% of requirement). In vitro digestibility of diets was conducted using the TNO-gastrointestinal model. Statistical analysis of SID data was conducted using a mixed model in SAS with diet as a fixed effect and pig and period as random effects. Means were separated using Tukey HSD. Statistical comparison for digestibility coefficients compared to one another and compared to MA coefficients of Met will be conducted once all IAAO and in vitro data are finalized. The SID coefficients for protein and indispensable amino acids are summarized in Table 1. Peas had lower threonine content compared to faba beans and lentils (P < 0.05). Determination of in vitrodigestibility and MA of Met is in progress.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.166
GPT teacher head0.397
Teacher spread0.231 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Animal Science→Same topicAnimal Nutrition and Physiology→French-language works237,207→