Immunological and haematinic consequences of feeding a standardised Echinacea ( <i>Echinacea angustifolia</i> ) extract to healthy horses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study was undertaken to compile new data on the efficacy of Echinacea in stimulating the immune system of the horse. Use of Echinacea is becoming widespread in horses, despite an absence of controlled laboratory research into its effectiveness or safety. This paper documents results of a double-blind, placebo-controlled, cross-over trial investigating the effect of standardised Echinacea extract on 8 horses. Animals were supplemented with Echinacea or placebo for 42 days, and their response to supplements recorded. Treatment with Echinacea increased phagocytic ability of isolated neutrophils, boosted peripheral lymphocyte counts and appeared to stimulate neutrophil migration from peripheral circulation into the tissues. Echinacea supplement also increased the size and concentration of peripheral red blood cells, and the concentration of haemoglobin and packed cell volume. It was concluded that Echinacea effectively stimulates equine immunocompetence, and the plant extract behaves, in equine subjects, as a haematinic agent, i.e. one which improves the quality of blood by increasing haemoglobin levels and the number of erythrocytes and which, by virtue of their effects on oxygen transport cells, are considered to improve parameters of exercise physiology and performance.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".