MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W204364791

Preliminary investigation of the probiotic potential of Lactobacillus rhamnosus strain GG in horses: fecal recovery following oral administration and safety.

2003· article· en· W204364791 on OpenAlexaff
J. Scott Weese, Maureen Anderson, Andrew Lowe, Gabrielle Monteith

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicProbiotics and Fermented Foods
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLactobacillus rhamnosusFecesProbioticColonizationHorseColony-forming unitBiologyAdverse effectMicrobiologyMedicineInternal medicineBacteria
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study was designed to evaluate whether Lactobacillus rhamnosus strain GG (LGG), an extensively studied probiotic organism in humans, can colonize the intestines of adult horses and foals. Lactobacillus rhamnosus strain GG was administered to adult horses at doses of 1 x 10(9) CFU/50kg bodyweight (BW)/day (group 1, 7 horses), 1 x 10(10) colony forming units/ 50kg BW/day (group 2, 7 horses) and 5 x 10(10) colony forming units/50kg BW/day (group 3, 7 horses) for 5 d. Foals received 2 x 10(10) colony forming units/50kg BW/day (group 1, 7 foals) or 1 x 10(11) colony forming units/50kg BW/day (group 2, 7 foals) for 5 d. Fecal levels of L. rhamnosus strain GG in adult horses were low and variable in the 2 lower dose groups. Even in the high dose group, colonization was relatively low. In contrast, more consistent intestinal colonization was present in foals, and colonization persisted for up to 9 d following cessation of administration. No adverse effects were observed in any animal. Clinical studies evaluating this probiotic are indicated in foals. The presence of this organism in the feces of adult horses may only represent passive movement through the intestinal tract, not actual colonization. Consistent intestinal colonization in adults was only achieved with a prohibitively high dose.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.793
Threshold uncertainty score0.125

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.192
Teacher spread0.175 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations59
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicProbiotics and Fermented FoodsFrench-language works237,207