Metabolic and Hormonal Response to a Feed-challenge Test in Lean and Overweight Dogs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Obese dogs risk poor life quality, creating a need for increased knowledge of metabolism in overweight dogs. OBJECTIVES: Investigate postprandial metabolic and hormonal responses to a high-fat mixed-meal in dogs and responses of lean versus overweight dogs. ANIMALS: Twenty-eight healthy intact male Labrador Retrievers were included. METHODS: Prospective observational study. Twelve dogs were grouped as lean (body condition score (BCS 4-5), 10 as slightly overweight (BCS 6), and 6 as overweight (BCS 6.5-8) on a 9-point scale. After an overnight fast, urine and blood samples were collected. Dogs were then fed a high-fat mixed-meal, and blood was collected hourly for 4 hours and urine after 3 hours. RESULTS: Postprandial concentrations of insulin and glucagon were increased at 1 hour (both P < 0.0001), triglycerides at 2 hours (P < 0.0001), and glucose at 3 hours (P = 0.004); and all remained increased throughout the feed-challenge in all dogs. Postprandial urine cortisol/creatinine ratio was higher than fasting values (P = 0.001). Comparing between groups, there was an overall higher triglyceride response in overweight compared to lean (P = 0.001) and slightly overweight (P = 0.015) dogs. Overweight dogs also had higher fasting cortisol/creatinine ratio compared to lean dogs (P = 0.024). CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPORTANCE: Postprandial responses of dogs to a high-fat mixed-meal were similar to those previously reported in people. The higher postprandial triglyceride response and fasting cortisol/creatinine ratio in the overweight dogs could be early signs of metabolic imbalance. Thus, although overweight dogs often appear healthy, metabolic alterations might be present.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".