Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41472759›Full record

ArticleVeterinary world2025

Machine learning-driven analysis of feed additives and intestinal microbiota diversity in broiler chickens: Clustering of mineral profiles and predictive diet modeling.

Lyubov Sergeevna Grishina, Arthur Yurievich Zhigalov, Irina Pavlovna Bolodurina, Alexander Evgenievich Shukhman, Pavel Leonidovich Niryan, Olga Vilorievna Kvan, Elena Vladimirovna Sheida

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Veterinary world, 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

7 authors.

Lyubov Sergeevna GrishinaLaboratory of Artificial Intelligence and Data Analysis, Research Institute of Digital Intelligent Technologies, Orenburg State University, Pobedy Pr. 13, Orenburg 460018, Russia.
Arthur Yurievich ZhigalovLaboratory of Artificial Intelligence and Data Analysis, Research Institute of Digital Intelligent Technologies, Orenburg State University, Pobedy Pr. 13, Orenburg 460018, Russia.
Irina Pavlovna BolodurinaLaboratory of Artificial Intelligence and Data Analysis, Research Institute of Digital Intelligent Technologies, Orenburg State University, Pobedy Pr. 13, Orenburg 460018, Russia.
Alexander Evgenievich ShukhmanLaboratory of Artificial Intelligence and Data Analysis, Research Institute of Digital Intelligent Technologies, Orenburg State University, Pobedy Pr. 13, Orenburg 460018, Russia.
Pavel Leonidovich NiryanLaboratory of Artificial Intelligence and Data Analysis, Research Institute of Digital Intelligent Technologies, Orenburg State University, Pobedy Pr. 13, Orenburg 460018, Russia.
Olga Vilorievna KvanDepartment of Food Biotechnology, Orenburg State University, Pobedy Pr. 13, Orenburg 460018, Russia.
Elena Vladimirovna SheidaDepartment of Food Biotechnology, Orenburg State University, Pobedy Pr. 13, Orenburg 460018, Russia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background and Aim: The gut microbiota of broilers plays a pivotal role in nutrient absorption, immune modulation, and mineral metabolism. Feed additives can influence these microbial and physiological processes, yet their integrated effects remain insufficiently understood. This study aimed to intelligently evaluate the impact of various feed additives on the intestinal microbiota and mineral composition of broiler chickens and to develop machine learning (ML) models for clustering and classification of diet-associated mineral and microbial profiles. Materials and Methods: A total of 385 Arbor Acres broilers (7 days old) were allocated into 11 groups, including one control semi-synthetic diet (SSD), one group with a semi-synthetic deficient diet (SSDD), and nine experimental groups receiving SSDD with different additives: Probiotics (Soya-bifidum and Sporobacterin), dietary fibers (cellulose, lactulose, and chitosan), enterosorbents (enterosgel and activated carbon), and ultrafine particles (UFPs) (Cu and Fe). Microbiota composition was assessed by 16S ribosomal RNA sequencing, and body mineral composition was determined through inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometer. To overcome data scarcity, synthetic records were generated using conditional tabular generative adversarial networks. K-means and hierarchical agglomerative clustering were used for mineral profile grouping, while logistic regression, SVM, and decision tree models classified diet types. Results: Hierarchical clustering revealed six distinct mineral profile groups (Silhouette = 0.524), with SSD and SSDD forming separate clusters. Feed additives such as UFPs, chitosan, and activated carbon induced similar mineral patterns. Key differentiating biomarkers were cobalt, zinc, strontium, arsenic, and lithium (p < 0.05). The decision tree classifier achieved 74% accuracy in predicting diet types based on microbiota data. Alpha diversity analysis showed enhanced microbial richness in groups fed lactulose, enterosgel, cellulose, or activated carbon. Conclusion: ML effectively elucidated complex relationships between diet, microbiota composition, and mineral metabolism in broilers. The integration of clustering and predictive models demonstrates the feasibility of intelligent feeding systems tailored to optimize gut health and nutrient utilization. Future studies integrating multi-omics data and broader farm-level validation will strengthen precision nutrition frameworks for sustainable poultry production.

Indexed as

broilersclusteringconditional tabular generative adversarial networksdecision treefeed additivesgut microbiotamachine learningmineral metabolism

Identifiers

PMID41472759
PMCPMC12745068

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.