Technical note: Comparison of 3 methods for analyzing areas under the curve for glucose and nonesterified fatty acids concentrations following epinephrine challenge in dairy cows

56Citations
Citations of this article
49Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

The objective of the study was to compare 3 methods for calculating the area under the curve (AUC) for plasma glucose and nonesterified fatty acids (NEFA) after an intravenous epinephrine (EPI) challenge in dairy cows. Cows were assigned to 1 of 6 dietary niacin treatments in a completely randomized 6 × 6 Latin square with an extra period to measure carryover effects. Periods consisted of a 7-d (d 1 to 7) adaptation period followed by a 7-d (d 8 to 14) measurement period. On d 12, cows received an i.v. infusion of EPI (1.4 μg/kg of BW). Blood was sampled at -45, -30, -20, -10, and -5. min before EPI infusion and 2.5, 5, 10, 15, 20, 30, 45, 60, 90, and 120. min after. The AUC was calculated by incremental area, positive incremental area, and total area using the trapezoidal rule. The 3 methods resulted in different statistical inferences. When comparing the 3 methods for NEFA and glucose response, no significant differences among treatments and no interactions between treatment and AUC method were observed. For glucose and NEFA response, the method was statistically significant. Our results suggest that the positive incremental method and the total area method gave similar results and interpretation but differed from the incremental area method. Furthermore, the 3 methods evaluated can lead to different results and statistical inferences for glucose and NEFA AUC after an EPI challenge. © 2011 American Dairy Science Association.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Cardoso, F. C., Sears, W., LeBlanc, S. J., & Drackley, J. K. (2011). Technical note: Comparison of 3 methods for analyzing areas under the curve for glucose and nonesterified fatty acids concentrations following epinephrine challenge in dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science, 94(12), 6111–6115. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2011-4627

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free