Probiotic Use in Horses – What is the Evidence for Their Clinical Efficacy?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The gastrointestinal microbiota is extremely important for human and animal health. Investigations into the composition of the microbiota and its therapeutic modification have received increasing interest in human and veterinary medicine. Probiotics are a way of modifying the microbiota and have been tested to prevent and treat diseases. Probiotics are proposed to exert their beneficial effects through various pathways. Production of antimicrobial compounds targeting intestinal pathogens, general immune stimulation, and colonization resistance are among these mechanisms. Despite widespread availability and use, scientific, peer-reviewed evidence behind commercial probiotic formulations in horses is limited. Additionally, quality control of commercial over-the-counter products is not tightly regulated. Although promising in vitro results have been achieved, in vivo health benefits have been more difficult to prove. Whether the ambiguous results are caused by strain selection, dosage selection or true lack of efficacy remains to be answered. Although these limitations exist, probiotics are increasingly used because of their lack of severe adverse effects, ease of administration, and low cost. This review summarizes the current evidence for probiotic use in equine medicine. It aims to provide veterinarians with evidence-based information on when and why probiotics are indicated for prevention or treatment of gastrointestinal disease in horses. The review also outlines the current state of knowledge on the equine microbiota and the potential of fecal microbial transplantation, as they relate to the topic of probiotics.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".