Overweight adult cats have significantly lower voluntary physical activity than adult lean cats
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives The objectives of the current pilot study were to evaluate whether body condition score (BCS) and body weight are significantly related to physical activity counts, and to evaluate potential interaction between BCS and voluntary physical activity measured over a 14 day period. Methods Ten (five lean, five overweight), neutered, adult American Shorthair cats were selected for this study (median age 4 ± 0.5 years). Cats with a BCS of ⩽3.0 were considered lean, whereas cats with a BCS >3.0 were considered overweight, using a 5-point scale. Cats were housed in a free-living environment with indoor/outdoor access and were individually fed once daily a commercially available dry extruded diet and allowed 1 h to eat. Voluntary physical activity was measured consecutively for 14 days using the Actical Activity Monitors that were worn parallel to the ribs and attached via a harness. Results Lean cats had a greater mean total daily voluntary physical activity ( P = 0.0059), and a greater voluntary physical activity during light ( P = 0.0023) and dark ( P = 0.0446) periods, with overweight cats having 60% of the physical activity of lean cats. Lean cats were more active before feeding and during animal care procedures. These data suggest that lean cats have a greater anticipatory physical activity prior to feeding and are more eager to have social interaction with humans than overweight cats. A significant interaction was observed between day of physical activity measurement and BCS for total daily voluntary physical activity ( P = 0.0133) and activity during the light period ( P = 0.0016) where lean cats were consistently more active than overweight cats. In general, cats were more active during weekdays vs weekends. Conclusions and relevance The results of this study suggest that overweight cats are less active than lean cats and that voluntary physical activity level appears to be influenced by social interaction with humans.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".