Effect of dental floating on weight gain, body condition score, feed digestibility, and fecal particle size in pregnant mares
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effect of routine dental floating on weight gain, body condition score, feed digestibility, and fecal particle size in pregnant mares fed various diets. DESIGN: Randomized controlled clinical trial. ANIMALS: 56 pregnant mares. PROCEDURE: Mares were randomly allocated to 1 of 4 feed groups (n = 14 mares/group). All horses were sedated and an oral examination was performed, after which dental floating was performed on 7 horses in each group. Body weight was measured, and a body condition score was assigned before and at various times for 24 weeks after dental floating. Feed digestibility and fecal particle size were analyzed 7 and 19 weeks after dental floating. RESULTS: Weight gain, change in body condition score, feed digestibility, and fecal particle size were not significantly different between horses that underwent dental floating and untreated control horses. In contrast, weight gain was significantly associated with feed group. In the control horses, neither the number of dental lesions nor the presence of any particular type of lesion at the time of the initial oral examination was significantly associated with subsequent feed digestibility. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Results suggest that dental floating does not result in significant short-term changes in body weight, body condition score, feed digestibility, or fecal particle size in healthy pregnant mares. Further studies are necessary to determine the clinical utility of regular dental floating in apparently healthy horses.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 it