Relationship between food grinding and gut microbiota in Brandt's voles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Food grinding is an abnormal behavior in rodents and its influencing factors are unknown. Our study investigated the potential relationships between gut microbiota and food grinding in Brandt's voles ( Lasiopodomys brandtii (Radde, 1861)) by comparing the differences between groups with different degrees of food grinding. The strong food-grinding group showed more relative food ground, higher ratio of ground food to food consumption, and lower percentage of time spent in the central area. The structure of fecal microbiota community differed between the strong and weak food-grinding groups. Strong and weak food-grinding voles showed higher abundances of Alistipes and Aerococcus and Atopostipes, Paenalcaligenes, Un—s-Clostridiaceae bacterium GM1, and Streptococcus, respectively. Strong correlations between the food ground to consumption ratio and abundances of fecal microbiota were found in Streptococcus and Paenalcaligenes. Fecal acetate and isobutyrate contents were higher in strong food-grinding voles and positively correlated with relative ground food and food ground to consumption ratio. Our study suggests that gut microbiota and short-chain fatty acids may contribute to the regulation of food-grinding behavior.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".