Comparative impact of conventional and alternative gut health management programs on plasma and tibia attributes in broiler chickens raised in commercial and research settings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Plasma and tibia attributes were investigated in broiler chickens raised on three gut health management programs in commercial farms (study 1) and research station settings (study 2). The programs were as follows: (1) conventional antibiotics (CON), (2) raised without medically important antimicrobials (RWMIA), and (3) raised without antibiotics (RWA). Birds had free access to feed and water from placement to harvest; samples of blood and left tibia were collected on day 28 in both studies and further samples were taken on day 41 in study 2. In both studies, there were no program differences ( P > 0.05) on plasma metabolites with exception of enzyme concentrations with notably higher levels of circulating plasma alkaline phosphatase (ALP) in birds reared on the RWA program ( P ≤ 0.04). Differences were observed among programs for tibia length in both studies ( P < 0.05). Birds reared on RWMIA exhibited significantly ( P = 0.016) higher tibia ash than CON on day 41. Observed differences in the plasma enzyme concentrations, tibia length, and ash concentration suggest altered metabolism which could be linked to gut health management programs and their ability to support gut integrity and function in the absence of antibiotics.
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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".