ArticlePoultry science2026
Relative bioavailability of dietary iron sources in growing Japanese quail: Multi-endpoint dose-response and Random Forest analyses.
Article in Poultry science, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The present study evaluated the relative bioavailability of Fe supplied as Fe sulfate (FeSO₄), chelated-Fe, nano-Fe oxide, and Fe oxide in growing Japanese quail. A total of 1,200 quails (21 d of age) were allocated to 20 treatments consisting of four Fe sources and five dietary Fe concentrations (30, 60, 90, 120, and 150 mg Fe/kg diet), with five replicate pens of 12 birds each. Growth performance, carcass traits, reproductive organ development, bone characteristics, mineral deposition, and fecal Fe excretion were determined. Relative bioavailability values (RBV) were estimated using linear slope-ratio assays or nonlinear exponential regression models according to the statistical validity of each response criterion. Random Forest analysis was additionally used to identify the biological traits most informative for predicting dietary Fe concentration. Fe source and supplementation level significantly affected body weight gain (P = 0.023 and P < 0.001, respectively) and feed conversion ratio (P = 0.012 and P < 0.001, respectively), with a significant source × level interaction for feed conversion ratio (P = 0.014). Testis weight and tibial Fe concentration were also affected by Fe source, supplementation level, and their interaction (P < 0.05). Chelated-Fe and nano-Fe generally produced greater tibial Fe concentrations than FeSO₄ and Fe oxide, whereas Fe oxide resulted in greater fecal Fe excretion (P < 0.001). Statistical validation supported linear slope-ratio analysis for selected response criteria, including bone density, bone volume, tibial zinc, and fecal Fe, whereas relative bone weight and thigh meat yield showed nonlinear responses. Slope-ratio analysis yielded RBV estimates of 116.6 % for chelated-Fe and 75.3 % for nano-Fe for bone density, while fecal Fe-based estimates were 101.2 % and 84.8 %, respectively, compared with FeSO₄; Fe oxide showed the highest fecal Fe-based estimate (136.3 %). Nonlinear analysis produced numerically favorable RBV estimates for chelated-Fe for relative bone weight (151.2 %) and thigh meat yield (118.0 %), but the associated confidence intervals indicated substantial uncertainty. Random Forest analysis identified FeFecal, relative bone weight, fecal ash, and liver Fe as the most informative predictors of dietary Fe concentration. Overall, Fe source influenced biological responses in an endpoint-dependent manner. Chelated-Fe and nano-Fe showed favorable responses for selected criteria, but the variability and uncertainty of RBV estimates preclude concluding consistent superiority over FeSO₄ across all biological endpoints.
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.