MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

ORIGINAL ARTICLE: High calcium intake differentially inhibits nutrient and energy digestibility in two different breeds of growing dogs

2010· article· en· W1910462504 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Britta Dobenecker, V. Frank, Ellen Kienzle

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Animal Physiology and Animal Nutrition · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicRabbits: Nutrition, Reproduction, Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNutrientCalciumAnimal scienceBiologyFood scienceAgronomyChemistryEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The current study was part of a larger investigation of two breeds of growing dogs (Dobenecker, 2002). The apparent digestibility of protein, fat, nitrogen-free extract (N-free extract) and organic matter as well as energy of a tripe and rice-based diet supplemented either with normal calcium [~1.1% dry matter (DM), normal calcium (NC)] or excess calcium [~3.6% DM, high calcium (HC)] was determined in two breeds of growing dogs of different sizes, including 30 Beagles and 44 Foxhound-Boxer-Ingelheim Labrador crossbred dogs (FBIs), at the ages of 12, 18 and 24 weeks. Apparent energy digestibility was significantly impaired by excess of calcium in both dog breeds, and the effect was stronger in FBIs than in Beagles (NC vs. HC in FBIs: 88.3 ± 2.6% vs. 84.7 ± 3.7%; NC vs. HC in Beagles: 89.0 ± 2.4% vs. 86.6 ± 3.4%; p < 0.05 in both FBIs and Beagles). The same was true for organic matter, N-free extract, crude protein and fat. The decrease in protein and fat digestibility was significant in FBIs, but not in Beagles. By contrast, the apparent digestibility of ash was lower in FBIs than in Beagles. Taken together, the results of the current study suggest that excess dietary calcium may be associated with systematic differences in nutrient digestibility by different breeds of dogs.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.238 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Animal Physiology and Animal NutritionSame topicRabbits: Nutrition, Reproduction, HealthFrench-language works237,207