MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2969445382 · doi:10.3390/ani9090597

Thyroid and Lipid Status in Guide Dogs During Training: Effects of Dietary Protein and Fat Content

2019· article· en· W2969445382 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Biagina Chiofalo, Esterina Fazio, Salvatore Cucinotta, Cristina Cravana

Bibliographic record

VenueAnimals · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldVeterinary
TopicVeterinary Medicine and Surgery
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFood scienceDietary proteinEndocrinologyThyroidAnimal scienceInternal medicineChemistryMedicineBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nutrition plays a leading role that most influences thyroid response and energetic metabolism. Aim was to compare the effect of diet on thyroid and lipid status in guide dogs during a 12-weeks training period. Eight Labrador Retrievers were divided into two groups homogeneous for sex, age, body weight, and Body Condition Score (BCS) and fed two commercial diets one, HPF, characterized by low-carbohydrate/high-protein/high-fat (29%:39%:19% as-fed) and the other, LPF, by high-carbohydrate/low-protein/low-fat (50%:24%:12% as-fed) content. The serum thriiodothyronine (T3), thyroxine (T4), cholesterol (CHOL), triglycerides (TAGs) and non-esterified fatty acids (NEFA) were determined at Day 0, 28, 56, and 84, before the daily training. Statistical model included the effects of Diet (HPF vs. LPF) and Time (Day 0 to Day 84), and their interaction. In the HPF group, Diet significantly (p < 0.01) increased T4, CHOL, and TAGs and decreased NEFA. In both groups, Time significantly (p < 0.05) increased T4 and TAGs, CHOL at Day 28, and NEFA at Day 56. The interaction did not influence serum hormones and lipid pattern. The adjustments in thyroid and lipid responses to moderate exercise in HPF group were driven mainly by the nutrient composition of the diet in relation to the involvement of metabolic homeostasis.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.918
Threshold uncertainty score0.570

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.077
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.225 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations6
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnimalsSame topicVeterinary Medicine and SurgeryFrench-language works237,207