ArticleFrontiers in veterinary science2023
Effects of
Article in Frontiers in veterinary science, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- A manually curated pig gut microbiome dataset for precision feeding.Scientific data · 2026Article
- Postbiotics from Saccharomyces cerevisiae RC016 Cell Wall (Formerly Classified as a Prebiotic): Exploring In Vitro and In Vivo Benefits.Probiotics and antimicrobial proteins · 2025Article
- Dietary coated copper and zinc improved growth performance by modulating immune responses and fecal microbiota of weaned pigs.Journal of animal science and technology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: This study was conducted to evaluate the effects of Methods: A total of 300 crossbred pigs [(Landrace × Yorkshire] × Duroc; 8.87 ± 0.34 kg of average initial body weight [BW]; 4 weeks of age) were divided into two dietary treatments (15 pigs/pen, 10 replicates/treatment) using a randomized complete block design (block = BW): control (CON) and the effective microorganism (MEM). The CON was not treated, while the MEM was treated with the mixture of Results and Discussion: The daily weight gain and feed efficiency of MEM were significantly higher than those of CON (
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.