Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40841427›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2025

Systematic selection of best performing mathematical models for in vitro gas production using machine learning across diverse feeds.

Hamed Ahmadi, Natascha Titze, Katharina Wild, Markus Rodehutscord

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Hamed AhmadiInstitute of Animal Science, University of Hohenheim, Stuttgart, Germany. hamed.ahmadi@uni-hohenheim.de.
Natascha TitzeInstitute of Animal Science, University of Hohenheim, Stuttgart, Germany.
Katharina WildInstitute of Animal Science, University of Hohenheim, Stuttgart, Germany.
Markus RodehutscordInstitute of Animal Science, University of Hohenheim, Stuttgart, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In vitro gas production (GP) is commonly used to evaluate ruminant feed, yet its accurate interpretation requires robust mathematical modeling. This study systematically explores a wide array of nonlinear models to explain GP dynamics across various feed types, addressing the question: how can efficient and versatile models that accurately represent GP profiles be identified? We hypothesized that distinct feed types exhibit unique GP characteristics, effectively captured by specific models, and that statistical and machine learning methodologies can streamline model selection. Utilizing a comprehensive dataset derived from 849 unique GP profiles across concentrate feed categories-including cereal and leguminous grains and processed protein feeds-21 candidate models were rigorously evaluated based on their goodness-of-fit metrics, with a particular emphasis on Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC) for model selection. A group of three models-namely Burr XII, Inverse paralogistic, and Log-logistic-consistently emerged as top performers, demonstrating high generalizability and predictive power across feed types. Notably, our analysis indicated that model type significantly influenced GP predictions, surpassing the impact of feed type characteristics. This research establishes a decision-making framework for model selection and sets the stage for further investigations linking in vitro GP parameters to in vivo digestibility, ultimately enhancing ruminant nutrition strategies.

Indexed as

Animal FeedGasesMachine LearningModels, BiologicalModels, TheoreticalAnimalsBayes TheoremRuminantsGasesGas productionMachine learningMathematical modelsModel selection

Identifiers

PMID40841427
PMCPMC12370934

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.