The effect of exercise intensity and use of an electrolyte supplement on plasma electrolyte concentrations in the Standardbred horse
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Eleven Standardbred horses were tested to assess plasma electrolyte fluctuations during different intensities of exercise (at rest, immediately following 20 min of jogging, and immediately following a 2 min race), with and without an orally administered electrolyte supplement 2 h prior to sample collection. Exercise treatments were repeated after horses were given an oral dosage of an electrolyte supplement 2 h prior to sample collection. Data were analyzed using a repeated incomplete 6 × 6 Latin-square design with a 3 × 2 factorial arrangement of treatments (exercise × supplement). Jogging horses had an elevated heart rate as compared with resting horses and plasma potassium concentrations that were higher than those of the other two treatments (P < 0.05). Racing horses had the highest heart rate of the three treatments and plasma sodium concentrations that were higher than those of resting and jogging horses (P < 0.05). Provision of an electrolyte supplement significantly increased heart rate, as well as blood potassium and sodium concentrations. Further studies on the dietary electrolyte supplementation would benefit from investigating additional performance and recovery parameters, with focus on the hydration status of the horse before, during, and after exercises.
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) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".