Effect of rostrocaudal mobility of the mandible on feed digestibility and fecal particle size in horses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of rostrocaudal mobility (RCM) of the mandible during extension and flexion of the atlanto-occipital joint on weight gain, feed digestibility, and fecal particle size in horses. DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial. ANIMALS: 34 pregnant mares housed in 1 barn. PROCEDURES: Horses were randomized into a treatment (n = 17) or control (17) group. All horses were sedated, and the distance between the rostral portions of the upper and lower incisor arcades was determined during extension and flexion of the atlanto-occipital joint; mandibular RCM was calculated as the difference between these values. In the treatment group, measurements were made after dental floating. Body weight was recorded 1 day before dental floating and at intervals after mandibular RCM determination for a period of 24 weeks. Feces were collected from each horse during two 5-day periods. Samples of feed and feces were analyzed to determine feed digestibility; particle size analysis was performed on dried fecal samples. RESULTS: Data obtained from each group of horses revealed that RCM of the mandible did not affect weight gain, feed digestibility, or particle size in feces; there were no differences among breeds. Controlling for age and number of dental lesions did not significantly affect results. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: In horses, RCM of the mandible did not appear to affect weight gain, feed digestibility, or fecal particle size. On the basis of these and other published data, the assumption that dental abnormalities affect digestion detrimentally in horses needs to be reevaluated.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".