RURSRice Undergraduate Research Symposium
Copyright 1988-2018, All rights reserved.
References in periodicals archive ?
RURS was performed in 992 (83.6%) patients and FURS was performed in 195 (16.4%).
Of the 992 patients, who underwent RURS, 6 patients (5 males and 1 female) with a mean age of 36.3 years (range, 20-67 years) were hospitalized because of postoperative SRH (0.6%).
There was no statistically significant difference in length of hospital stay between patients undergoing FURS or RURS who developed SRH and those without SRH (p>0.05).
Blood transfusion was needed in 3 patients, two of whom were in the RURS group.
Observations for a or b pool size, Kd, AA contents in original, RUR and final residual, and SID were analyzed by analysis of variance using general linear model of SAS (SAS, 2003).
The intestinal DM digestibilities of RUR from the three proteinaceous feeds were significantly different (p < 0.01) with CSM being the highest, SFSM being the lowest, and DDGS being in the middle (Table 4).
Ruminal degradation and intestinal digestibility of DM and CP in RUR determined by the in situ nylon bag technique and a modified in vitro three-step procedure (1) Items CSM SFSM DDGS SEM p-values Rumen degradation (2) DM (%) 29.8 (A) 17.0 (B) 27.4 (A) 5.14 <0.001 CP (%) 12.4 (b) 12.9 (ab) 15.3 (a) 4.41 0.051 Intestinal digestibility (3) DM (%) 64.3 (A) 58.8 (C) 62.2 (B) 3.26 <0.001 CP (%) 89.1 (B) 88.5 (C) 93.3 (A) 0.79 <0.001 DM, dry matter; CP, crude protein; RUR, rumen undegradable residuals; CSM, cottonseed meal; SFSM, sunflower seed meal; DDGS, distillers dried grains with solubles; SEM, standard error of the mean; RRT, rumen retention time; RUP, rumen-undegradable protein.
Although the runtime of SPCM is longer than the Naive algorithm, RAR and RUR of the Naive algorithm are worse.
We calculate average RUR and average utility values of each node through Eq.(11) and compare our method with the Naive approach, as shown in Fig.