MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4367729041 · doi:10.2141/jpsa.2023011

Regulatory Effects of the Probiotic <i>Clostridium butyricum</i> on Gut Microbes, Intestinal Health, and Growth Performance of Chickens

2023· review· en· W4367729041 on OpenAlexaff
Min Liu, Victoria Anthony Uyanga, Xikang Cao, Xinyu Liu, Hai Lin

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Poultry Science · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Nutrition and Physiology
Canadian institutionsMinistry of Agriculture
FundersNatural Science Foundation of Shandong ProvinceChina Postdoctoral Science FoundationKey Technology Research and Development Program of ShandongNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsClostridium butyricumProbioticBiologyMicrobiologyClostridiumButyric acidFood scienceBacteriaFermentation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Clostridium butyricum is an important probiotic for chickens and exerts various biological activities, including altering the composition of the intestinal microbiota, competing with other microorganisms for nutrients, improving the integrity of the intestinal mucosal system, changing the intestinal barrier, and improving overall host health. Intestinal microbes also play vital roles in maintaining the intestinal barrier, regulating intestinal health, and promoting chicken growth. During chicken production, chickens are vulnerable to various stressors that have detrimental effects on the intestinal barrier with significant economic consequences. C. butyricum is a known probiotic that promotes intestinal health and produces the short-chain fatty acid butyric acid, which is beneficial for the growth performance of chickens. This review elucidates the development and utilization of C. butyricum to improve intestinal barrier function and growth performance in chickens through its probiotic properties and interactions with intestinal microbes.

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)0.002
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.761
Threshold uncertainty score0.486

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.230 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations20
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Poultry ScienceSame topicAnimal Nutrition and PhysiologyFrench-language works237,207