MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4403827213 · doi:10.1139/cjas-2023-0128

Effects of functional amino acid blend dietary supplementation with different feeding regimens on growth performance and protein utilization in weaned pigs

2024· article· en· W4403827213 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Bonjin Koo, Chengbo Yang, C. M. Nyachoti

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Animal Science · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Nutrition and Physiology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
FundersSwine Innovation Porc
KeywordsDietary proteinAmino acidBiologyFood scienceAnimal scienceProtein dietChemistryBody weightBiochemistryEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A study was conducted to investigate the effects of functional amino acid (AA) blend dietary supplementation with different feeding regimens on growth performance and protein utilization in weaned pigs. Pigs were fed either a standard (STD) diet or a supplemental (SUP) diet, which included an additional AA blend in the STD diet. Ninety-six piglets (6.51 ± 0.34 kg) were randomly assigned to one of four feeding regimens: a STD diet throughout the experiment, or a SUP diet for phase I (SUP7), until phase II (SUP21), or until phase III (SUP35). During phase I, pigs fed an SUP diet exhibited a greater ( P < 0.05) average daily gain and gain-to-feed ratio (G:F) than those fed the STD diet. Pigs in the SUP35 group had a higher ( P < 0.05) G:F than those in the SUP7 group. Pigs in the SUP21 and SUP35 groups had greater ( P < 0.05) digestibility of N than those in the SUP7 group. Pigs in the SUP35 group had upregulated ( P < 0.05) mRNA encoding mammalian targets of rapamycin and cationic AA transporter1 in longissimus dorsi than those in the SUP21 group. Feeding the SUP diet throughout the 5-week nursery phase is recommended to achieve optimal growth performance and protein metabolism.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.193 · 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 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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Animal Science→Same topicAnimal Nutrition and Physiology→French-language works237,207→