Effect of premolar and molar occlusal angle on feed digestibility, water balance, and fecal particle size in horses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether occlusal angle of the premolar and molar teeth (ie, molar occlusal angle) was associated with feed digestibility, water balance, or fecal particle size in adult horses. DESIGN: Observational study. ANIMALS: 40 pregnant mares ranging from 3 to 19 years old. PROCEDURE: The horses were randomly allocated to 1 of 5 feeding groups with 8 horses/group. Horses were sedated, and molar occlusal angle was measured with 2 methods. An oral examination was performed, and total number of dental abnormalities was recorded. Feed digestibility, water balance, and fecal particle size were measured 7 and 16 weeks later. RESULTS: Molar occlusal angle ranged from 6.3 degrees to 19.3 degrees and was not significantly associated with feed digestibility, water balance, or fecal particle size. The number of dental abnormalities was not associated with feed digestibility. Molar occlusal angle did not vary significantly with horse age. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Results indicate that molar occlusal angles between 6 degrees and 19 degrees do not adversely affect feed digestibility, water balance, or fecal particle size in adult horses. Additionally, there was no association between age and molar occlusal angle.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".