MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402541368 · doi:10.1093/jas/skae234.491

PSII-1 Weaning as prenatal stress: preliminary study on indicators of calf resiliency

2024· article· en· W4402541368 on OpenAlexaff
Christy Goldhawk, Karin Orsel, Edmond A. Pajor

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Animal Science · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicInfant Nutrition and Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWeaningPrenatal stressStress (linguistics)BiologyAnimal sciencePregnancyOffspringGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Maternal stressors have been reported to alter fetal development in many species. During pregnancy beef cattle are subjected to different potential stressors, such as weaning their current offspring, as part of beef production practices. The objective of this study was to investigate the relationship between weaning method as a prenatal maternal stress and the effect on offspring resiliency. Multiparous cows were weaned of their calves in the fall of 2022 using either abrupt (A), fenceline (F), or nose-flap (N) weaning methods (n = 30 per group). Calves born from these cows the following spring (2023) were followed for birthweights, morbidity, and mortality. Mean estimated fetal age at exposure was 126 d (range 66 to 219 d) using breed averages for gestational length. Cognitive tests were performed at 2 mo of age using an outdoor arena to continuously monitor calves during 2 min of initial isolation, 2 min exposed to a novel object, and 1 min of exposure to a human in the arena. Tests were performed sequentially, and treatments were balanced across days. Prenatal exposure to A was associated with a 74.8 (2.5 to 2,237.3, P < 0.01) and 21.5 (1.2 to 385.7, P = 0.03) times increase in the odds of calves being stillborn or failure to thrive within 24 h of birth compared with F or N, respectively. There was no difference in morbidity or mortality during d 1 to 60. Birthweights were available on one-half of the calves from each group and showed no statistical difference; however, there was a 4.53 kg numerical difference between A and N groups. Behavioral data from a subset of 36 calves (A = 14, F = 11, and N = 11) was assessed for time spent standing, moving, exploring, duration in the open center vs. perimeter of the arena. There was a tendency for A exposed calves to spend more time in the perimeter after being confronted with a novel object compared with N exposed calves (mean difference of percent of total test time in perimeter from isolation to novel object test: A = 24.0 ± 23.9 %, N = -2.9 ± 22.1 %, P = 0.08). Fenceline exposed calves spent more time moving during initial isolation than either abrupt or nose-flap (69.3 ± 14.7 %, 50.6 ± 11.9 %, and 69.9 ± 17.8 % for A, F, N, respectively (P = 0.01 for A vs F and F vs N). These behavioral and physiological indicators support a potential divergence in survivability and coping mechanisms associated with prenatal exposure to different weaning methods. Future research will evaluate different dimensions of cognitive performance as well as increasing sample size.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.336 · 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 designObservational
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 topicInfant Nutrition and HealthFrench-language works237,207