Adult dogs are capable of regulating calcium balance, with no adverse effects on health, when fed a high-calcium diet
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although the implications of long-term high Ca intakes have been well documented in growing dogs, the health consequences of Ca excess in adult dogs remain to be established. To evaluate the impact of feeding a diet containing 7·1 g/4184 kJ (1000 kcal) Ca for 40 weeks on Ca balance and health parameters in adult dogs, eighteen neutered adult Labrador Retrievers, (nine males and nine females) aged 2·5-7·4 years were randomised to one of two customised diets for 40 weeks. The diets were manufactured according to similar nutritional specifications, with the exception of Ca and P levels. The diets provided 1·7 and 7·1 g/4184 kJ (1000 kcal) (200(SD26) and 881(SD145) mg/kg body weight0·75 per d, respectively) Ca, respectively, with a Ca:P ratio of 1·6. Clinical examinations, ultrasound scans, radiographs, health parameters, metabolic effects and mineral balance were recorded at baseline and at 8-week intervals throughout the study. Dogs in both groups were healthy throughout the trial without evidence of urinary, renal or orthopaedic disease. In addition, there were no clinically relevant changes in any of the measures made in either group (all P>0·05). The high-Ca diet resulted in a 3·3-fold increase in faecal Ca excretion (P0·05). Ca intakes of up to 7·1 g/4184 kJ (1000 kcal) are well tolerated over a period of 40 weeks, with no adverse effects that could be attributed to the diet or to a high mineral intake.
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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".