Feeding Patterns and Medical Diagnosis Frequency in a National Survey of Older Dogs
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Veterinarians and owners are often concerned with the nutrition of dogs, but most knowledge of real‐world pet feeding practices is anecdotal. A survey was conducted among owners of dogs aged ≥ 5 yrs at general practice veterinary clinics across the United States (2016–2017). Owners participated in a clinic visit with their dog, and demographics including age and breed were collected. Veterinarians documented the dog’s medical history and completed a physical exam including Body Fat Index (BFI) rated using a visual scale. Owners completed a nutrition survey by estimating the proportions of dry, wet, human food, treats, and other foods (including homemade petfoods) offered to their dog the prior day. Complete nutrition survey information was obtained from 992 dogs (5.0 to 20.8 yrs, median 9.4 yrs); of these 982 (99%) had complete medical histories. Dogs represented 15 states: PA (17%), CO (17%), NY (12.7%), IL (8.5%), VA (7.9%), FL (7.8%), MO (6.8%), NJ (5.0%), MI (4.6%), MD (4.5%), TX (3.3%), LA (2.5%), GA (1.5%), CT (0.6%), and CA (0.2%). In addition to mixed breeds, 115 dog breeds were reported by owners, most commonly: Labrador Retriever (13.1%), Golden Retriever (5.3%), Shih Tzu (3.9%), Other (3.7%), German Shepherd (3.7%), Dachshund (3.3%), Yorkshire Terrier (3.1%), Beagle (2.7%), Bichon Frise (2.6%) and Pug (2.4%). Giant breeds together represented 3.8% of all dogs. The 10 most common diagnoses observed in the medical history were mild/moderate dental/gum disease: 83.7%, benign tumors (including lipomas): 46.2%, overweight/obese: 34.8%, otitis (in which atopic dermatitis was ruled out): 20.3%, arthritis (elbow, stifle, back, and/or neck): 19.6%, atopic dermatitis: 15.3%, hypothyroidism: 13.1%, sebaceous cysts: 11.3%, arthritis of the hip: 10.7%, urinary tract infection: 10.0%. BFI as assessed by vets at the time of the survey ranged from 10 to 70, median 30; 69.2% dogs had a BFI of 20 or 30 while 23.5% had a BFI of 40 or more. 92.5% of dogs were offered any dry food while 72.6% of dogs were offered ≥ 90% of their intake as dry food and 19.5% of dogs were offered exclusively dry food. 23.6% of dogs were offered any wet food; 2.6% were offered ≥ 90% of their intake as wet food and only 0.7% of dogs were offered exclusively wet food. 58.8% of dogs were offered any treats, 32.0% of dogs were offered any human food, and 5.0% were offered other food, including homemade petfoods. Most owners of older dogs fed predominantly dry food and only a minority fed wet food exclusively. Treats and human food were commonly offered. The frequency of breeds and diagnoses observed in this population were generally similar to other national surveys; this analysis provides important information about feeding patterns among older dogs. Support or Funding Information This study was funded by Hill’s Pet Nutrition, Inc.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».