MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388853179 · doi:10.1139/cjas-2023-0064

Estimation of digestible zinc and copper in pigs: a meta-analysis approach

2023· article· en· W4388853179 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Mohamed Ali Ketata, Marie-Pierre Létourneau-Montminy, Frédéric Guay

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Animal Science · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicTrace Elements in Health
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
FundersMinistère de l'Agriculture, des Pêcheries et de l'Alimentation
KeywordsPhytaseZincCopperChemistryAnimal scienceFood scienceBiochemistryBiologyEnzyme

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective of this study was to quantify the impact of Zn and Cu supplementation and nutritional factors on the digestible content of these minerals using a meta-analysis approach. A database derived from 24 publications and describing 142 experimental treatments was compiled. A model showed that positive effects of chelated, (linear and quadratic, P < 0.01) and inorganic Zn supplementation ( P < 0.05) (linear and quadratic, P < 0.01), Zn from ingredients (linear, P < 0.01) and a negative linear effect of dietary Cu concentration ( P = 0.067; R2= 94%) on digestible Zn content. In other model, addition of phytase showed linear improvement of digestible Zn ( P < 0.01; R2= 96%). For digestible Cu, a model showed that chelated and inorganic Cu supplementation ( P < 0.01) linearly increased digestible Cu while dietary Zn level decreased it ( P < 0.01; R2 = 93%). Dietary phytase did not impact digestible content of Cu. The digestibility of Zn and Cu depends on dietary supplementation of these minerals in diets but also on the interaction between these minerals. Finally, phytase supplementation improves digestible Zn content but not Cu.

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)0.031
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.035
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.165

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0310.035
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0140.049
Bibliometrics0.0060.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.348
Teacher spread0.249 · 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 designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations5
Published2023
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Animal ScienceSame topicTrace Elements in HealthFrench-language works237,207