MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2807774642 · doi:10.2460/javma.252.12.1521

Quantification of vitamin D3 in commercial dog foods and comparison with Association of American Feed Control Officials recommendations and manufacturer-reported concentrations

2018· article· en· W2807774642 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Georgia Kritikos, Nicole Weidner, James L. Atkinson, J Bayle, Ingrid van Hoek, Adronie Verbrugghe

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Veterinary Medical Association · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVitamin D Research Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineVitaminNutrition facts labelEnvironmental healthFood scienceBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract OBJECTIVE To quantify vitamin D3 (VitD3) concentrations in commercial dog foods and compare those concentrations with Association of American Feed Control Officials (AAFCO) recommendations and manufacturer-reported concentrations. DESIGN Cross-sectional study. SAMPLE 82 commercial dog foods. PROCEDURES Samples of commercially available dog foods were obtained from owners of healthy dogs in the Guelph, ON, Canada, area and owners of dogs that were patients at the Ontario Veterinary College Health Sciences Centre's Mona Campbell Centre for Animal Cancer. For each food, the VitD3 concentration was determined by high-performance liquid chromatography–tandem mass spectrometry, and adherence to AAFCO and National Research Council recommendations was assessed. Analyzed VitD3 concentrations were compared with manufacturer-reported VitD3 concentrations and between wet and dry foods, among AAFCO nutritional adequacy statements (nutrient profiles vs feeding trials and adult maintenance vs all life stages), between foods sold only by veterinarians and those sold over the counter, and between small and large manufacturers. RESULTS The analyzed VitD3 concentration was below both AAFCO and National Research Council recommendations for one sample and below the assay detection limit for another. Analyzed VitD3 concentrations did not differ significantly from manufacturer-reported VitD3 concentrations or between wet and dry foods, among foods with different AAFCO nutritional adequacy statements, between foods sold only by veterinarians and those sold over the counter, or between foods produced by small and large manufacturers. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE Results suggested that manufacturer-reported VitD3 concentrations were accurate and that dog owners can be confident that VitD3 intake is adequate for AAFCO-compliant commercial dog foods.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.036
GPT teacher head0.373
Teacher spread0.337 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations12
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Veterinary Medical AssociationSame topicVitamin D Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207