MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403129786 · doi:10.1016/j.anopes.2024.100079

Method: Body composition assessment of sows using dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry

2024· article· en· W4403129786 on OpenAlexafffund
J. Heurtault, G. Maïkoff, Marie-Pierre Létourneau-Montminy, P. Schlegel

Bibliographic record

VenueAnimal - Open Space · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBody Composition Measurement Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
FundersMitacs
KeywordsDual-energy X-ray absorptiometryComposition (language)X-rayDual energyDual (grammatical number)Materials scienceNuclear medicineMedicinePhysicsInternal medicineBone mineralOpticsArtOsteoporosis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

For about 30 years, the introduction of dual X-ray absorptiometry ( DXA ) scanners in swine research has enabled the non-invasive study of body composition kinetics in animals. So far, the use of DXA technology in swine was focused on piglets, growing pigs up to about 140 kg of BW, as well as carcasses. Due to their size and weight, measuring a sow’s body composition is beyond the technical limits of the device. Furthermore, the chemical composition derived from DXA values is based on equations developed for pigs weighing between 20 and 100 kg. The present aim was to focus on the sow to (1) present a standard operation procedure to obtain the body composition of sows by DXA, and (2) assess the ability of available equations to predict a sow’s chemical body composition. For (1), a study investigated the effect of the animal’s position on DXA body composition. A total of 58 DXA acquisitions of sows were obtained on the standard ventral position (front and back legs extended) and on the lateral position (on left flank with right legs placed inward and left legs placed outward). The predicted BW, lean tissue mass, fat tissue mass, bone mineral content, bone area, and bone mineral density of the standard ventral position from the obtained lateral position resulted in root mean square prediction errors expressed as a percentage of the observed mean value of 0.5, 1.9, 5.0, 2.7, 3.1 and 3.5%, respectively. For (2), 3 sows were scanned alive and then slaughtered to measure chemical composition, then, these results were compared with equations based on growing pig data. The chemical composition of the carcass was predicted more accurately than that of the empty body. Regarding minerals, the Ca and P contents of the empty body were overestimated (12 and 3% respectively), as with the Ca content of the carcass (6%), while the P content of the carcass was underestimated (5%). In conclusion, the proposed material and operation procedure enables the scanning of sows which exceed the maximal specification of a DXA device. Furthermore, before concluding the accuracy of the chemical body composition prediction equations based on DXA data for pigs weighing between 20 and 100 kg, additional data are required to determine their applicability to sows.

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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.405
Threshold uncertainty score0.772

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.425
Teacher spread0.361 · 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
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

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnimal - Open SpaceSame topicBody Composition Measurement TechniquesFrench-language works237,207