A 6‐month observational study of changes in objectively measured physical activity during weight loss in dogs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate long-term changes in physical activity and sedentary behaviour during weight loss in dogs. METHODS: Sixteen overweight and obese dogs undergoing a 6-month calorie-controlled weight-loss programme wore Actigraph GT3X accelerometers (Actigraph, FL) for three consecutive days each month for the duration of the programme. Total volume of physical activity and time spent in sedentary behaviour, light-moderate intensity physical activity and vigorous intensity physical activity were extracted from the accelerometer data and compared from baseline to month 6. RESULTS: Valid accelerometry data were returned for 14 of 16 dogs. Mean percentage weight loss over 6 months was 15% of initial bodyweight. There was no marked increase in any of the physical activity outcomes or reduction in sedentary behaviour. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Substantial weight loss was not associated with a spontaneous increase in physical activity or reduction in sedentary behaviour. Although the dogs in this study lost a substantial amount of bodyweight without a measured increase in physical activity, dog owners should still be encouraged to facilitate increased physical activity in their dogs owing to the wide range of benefits associated with physical activity other than weight loss.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".