MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4396651677 · doi:10.1093/jas/skae102.131

150 Development of a leaky gut model: Meta-analysis of plasma and fecal markers of leaky gut

2024· article· en· W4396651677 on OpenAlexaff
S. E. Schuling, Megan N Engeseth, Sue M Knudtson, Ran Song, Dan E Schimek

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Animal Science · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGastrointestinal disorders and treatments
Canadian institutionsNutrasource
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFecesMeta-analysisBiologyMicrobiologyMedicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Intestinal integrity can be compromised in livestock and poultry species during stress events, including off-feed events. To develop a leaky gut model, weanling barrows 26 to 28 d old [n = 307; Duroc terminal line Fast genetics, initial body weight (BW) = 5.90 ± 0.47 kg), were used in a total of 6 randomized complete block experiments at the NutriQuest modeling center (Fergus Falls, MN). All trials included positive control (PC) and negative control (NC) treatments. The other treatments evaluated (n = 8) were various strains and levels of direct-fed microbial (DFM) products. With the exception of PC, all treatments had complete 24-h feed restriction (FR) approximately 18 d after arrival. Pigs assigned to PC had ad libitum access to feed. Pigs were housed 3 pigs per pen in 1 of 30 pens, and all pigs were fed a common high-quality basal diet. For 3 trials, pigs received Excede (Zoetis; Parsipanny, NJ) IM upon arrival and were provided gentamycin via water for 3 d post-arrival. For 3 trials, no prophylactic antibiotics were administered. Eighteen days post-arrival, fecal and plasma samples were collected from all pigs and feed was removed from FR pens. After 24 h, plasma and fecal samples were collected from all pigs, and one-half of the pigs per trial were harvested for tissue collection. Four days after FR, samples were collected similarly, and the remaining pigs were harvested. Plasma samples were analyzed for LPS binding protein concentrations (LBP), and fecal samples were analyzed for myeloperoxidase (MPO) concentrations. Data from the PC (n = 90) and NC (n = 92) treatments only were analyzed as Individual Participant Data meta-analysis using PROC MIXED of SAS. Data from all pigs (n = 307) were analyzed using PROC REG of SAS with forward step-wise selection to determine relationships between response variables. Plasma LBP concentrations did not differ between PC and NC 24 h after FR (P = 0.14). However, change in LBP concentrations and the ratio of LBP immediately before and after FR, differed between PC and NC (P < 0.001). For NC, LBP concentrations decreased, and for PC, LBP concentrations increased (Table 1). There was no effect of treatment on fecal MPO concentrations. Using the broader dataset (n = 307), variables that were predictive of plasma LBP concentrations immediately following FR were trial (P < 0.001), treatment (P < 0.001), and fecal MPO concentrations (P < 0.05). Variables that were predictive of change in LBP concentrations before and after FR were trial (P < 0.001), treatment (P < 0.001), and initial BW (P < 0.01). These data, taken with data presented in a companion abstract on ileal tight junction gene expression, suggest that plasma LBP concentrations immediately following a FR event are a useful marker of leaky gut. Fecal MPO concentrations do not consistently respond to FR.

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)0.018
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
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 score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.097

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0180.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.022
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.263 · 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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Animal ScienceSame topicGastrointestinal disorders and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207