MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4323318557 · doi:10.3390/vaccines11030595

The Development of Gut Microbiota and Its Changes Following C. jejuni Infection in Broilers

2023· review· en· W4323318557 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Walid Ghazi Al Hakeem, Keila Y. Acevedo-Villanueva, Ramesh K. Selvaraj

Bibliographic record

VenueVaccines · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Nutrition and Physiology
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersHatchNational Institute of Food and AgricultureU.S. Department of Agriculture
KeywordsCampylobacter jejuniImmune systemGut floraBiologyCommensalismGut bacteriaBacteriaHost (biology)MicrobiologyImmunologyEcologyGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The gut is home to more than millions of bacterial species. The gut bacteria coexist with the host in a symbiotic relationship that can influence the host’s metabolism, nutrition, and physiology and even module various immune functions. The commensal gut microbiota plays a crucial role in shaping the immune response and provides a continuous stimulus to maintain an activated immune system. The recent advancements in high throughput omics technologies have improved our understanding of the role of commensal bacteria in developing the immune system in chickens. Chicken meat continues to be one of the most consumed sources of protein worldwide, with the demand expected to increase significantly by the year 2050. Yet, chickens are a significant reservoir for human foodborne pathogens such as Campylobacter jejuni. Understanding the interaction between the commensal bacteria and C. jejuni is essential in developing novel technologies to decrease C. jejuni load in broilers. This review aims to provide current knowledge of gut microbiota development and its interaction with the immune system in broilers. Additionally, the effect of C. jejuni infection on the gut microbiota is addressed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.994
Threshold uncertainty score0.244

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.099
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.215 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations21
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVaccinesSame topicAnimal Nutrition and PhysiologyFrench-language works237,207