Effect of raw and encapsulated policosanol on lipid profiles, blood biochemistry, activity, energy expenditure and macronutrient metabolism of adult cats
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to verify the safety of policosanol supplementation for domestic cats. The effects of raw and encapsulated policosanol were compared with positive (L-carnitine) and negative (no supplementation) controls on outcomes of complete blood count, serum biochemistry, energy expenditure, respiratory quotient and physical activity in healthy young adult cats. METHODS: The study was a replicated 4 × 4 complete Latin square design. Eight cats (four castrated males, four spayed females; mean age 3.0 ± 1.0 years; mean weight 4.36 ± 1.08 kg; mean body condition score 5.4 ± 1.4) were blocked by sex and body weight then randomized to treatment groups: raw policosanol (10 mg/kg body weight), encapsulated policosanol (50 mg/kg body weight), L-carnitine (200 mg/kg body weight) or no supplementation. Treatments were supplemented to a basal diet for 28 days with a 1-week washout between periods. Food was distributed equally between two offerings to ensure complete supplement consumption (first offering) and measure consumption time (second offering). Blood collection (lipid profile, complete blood count, serum biochemistry) and indirect calorimetry (energy expenditure, respiratory quotient) were conducted at days 0, 14 and 28 of each period. Activity monitors were worn 7 days prior to indirect calorimetry and blood collection. Data were analyzed using a repeated measures mixed model (SAS, v.9.4). RESULTS: <0.05). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: These data suggest that policosanol is safe for feline consumption. Further studies with cats demonstrating cardiometabolic risk factors are warranted to confirm whether policosanol therapy is an efficacious treatment for hyperlipidemia and obesity.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".