Use of a probiotic formulation in control of Eimeria tenella infection in broiler chickens
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The effects of probiotics in broiler chickens were evaluated with respect to feed conversion ratio (FCR), body weights, lesion scores, oocyst output, and cytokine and parasite-specific serum antibody production in birds facing a virulent 'Eimeria tenella' challenge infection. In 2 of 3 trials at 6 days post-infection (dpi), weights of chickens given probiotics twice before challenge were significantly greater than challenged birds without probiotics and feed conversion ratios of probiotic-treated birds were not different from non-challenged birds. Cecal interferon-[gamma] expression differed significantly between challenged and non-challenged birds but not within challenged or non-challenged groups. No significant differences in oocyst output were seen; however, 5 of 6 times probiotic-treated groups shed fewer oocysts. In summary, probiotics showed some evidence of reducing negative performance impact associated with coccidiosis. With further refinement, the use of probiotics may lessen the impact of coccidiosis and potentially reduce the poultry industry's reliance on prophylactic in-feed medications.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".