Effect of a Probiotic on Prevention of Diarrhea and <i>Clostridium difficile</i> and <i>Clostridium perfringens</i> Shedding in Foals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Up to 60% of foals develop diarrhea within 6 months after birth. Preventive measures are limited but potentially probiotics could be used. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of a newly designed probiotic on the incidence of foal diarrhea in a randomized field trial. ANIMALS: Seventy-two healthy neonatal foals. METHODS: Randomized, placebo-controlled field trial. Foals were administered a placebo or probiotic for 3 weeks and monitored for an additional week. A total of 3 fecal samples were taken from each foal at biweekly intervals. Statistical modeling was applied for comparison of incidence and duration of diarrhea and fecal shedding of Clostridium perfringens and Clostridium difficile between treatment and age groups. RESULTS: The overall incidence of diarrhea was 41 of 72 (59%) and did not differ (P = 0.37) between treatment groups. Foals treated with probiotics were more likely to develop diarrhea requiring veterinary intervention (P = 0.007). Age had a significant effect on incidence of diarrhea (P < 0.001); foals 8-15 days old having the highest probability of developing diarrhea. Duration of diarrhea and soft feces were not significantly different between groups. The prevalence of C. perfringens shedding was 55% with no difference between treatment groups (P = 0.23). The prevalence of C. difficile shedding was 11%. CONCLUSION AND CLINICAL IMPORTANCE: There was no benefit of administering a 3-week course of probiotics, but potential adverse effects were noted. Whether the probiotics lacked a clinical effect, or the choice of strains or dose was inadequate, is unknown. Clostridial shedding was not influenced by probiotics despite in vitro activity of probiotics.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".