MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3165612219 · doi:10.1111/jpn.13572

Estimation of energy expenditure using the oral <sup>13</sup>C‐bicarbonate technique in privately owned adult and senior dogs of three different body sizes

2021· article· en· W3165612219 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Caroline Marcussen, Ea Meng Jørgensen, Nickie Lemire‐Dilling, Anne‐Helene Tauson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Animal Physiology and Animal Nutrition · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldVeterinary
TopicVeterinary Medicine and Surgery
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersRoyal Canin
KeywordsEnergy expenditureEstimationAnimal scienceBicarbonateBody weightEnergy metabolismChemistryMathematicsStatisticsBiologyEconomicsEndocrinologyManagement

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Knowledge about energy requirements (ER) of dogs is important in order to provide dogs with an appropriate energy supply. In this study, the oral 13 C‐bicarbonate technique (o 13 CBT) was used to estimate energy expenditure (EE) in 50 privately owned dogs of different body sizes (small: Danish–Swedish Farmdog (DSF, n = 16), medium: Beagle ( n = 15), large: Labrador Retriever ( n = 19)), of different ages (adult: 2–7 years ( n = 33), senior: ≥8 years ( n = 17)). The aim was to evaluate the feasibility of the method in the field and to get more information about ER of dogs. All dogs were measured twice, on two separate days under standardized, resting conditions. The dogs were fasted overnight prior to measurements, which were carried out in home environment. Only measurements of dogs resting calmly were included in the statistical analyses. No significant difference ( p &gt; 0.05) in EE was found between days of measurements. The EE measured in Labrador Retrievers (405 kJ (97 kcal)/kg BW 0.75 /day) was significantly lower ( p &lt; 0.001) than of Beagles (530 kJ (127 kcal)/kg BW 0.75 /day) and DSF (497 kJ (119 kcal)/kg BW 0.75 /day), the difference between Beagles and DSF being non‐significant. Senior dogs had significantly lower ( p &lt; 0.001) EE values than adult dogs with least square means (LSM) of 441 kJ (105 kcal)/kg BW 0.75 /day and 513 kJ (123 kcal)/kg BW 0.75 /day respectively. Analysed within breeds, EE of senior Labrador Retrievers (370 kJ (88 kcal)/kg BW 0.75 /day)) was significantly lower ( p &lt; 0.01) than adults (439 kJ (105 kcal)/kg BW 0.75 /day), as well as in DSF (453 kJ (108 kcal)/kg BW 0.75 /day and 541 kJ (129 kcal)/kg BW 0.75 /day for senior and adult dogs respectively). However, the EE was not significantly different ( p &gt; 0.05) between adult (548 kJ (131 kcal)/kg BW 0.75 /day) and senior (499 kJ (119 kcal)/kg BW 0.75 /day) Beagles. This study suggests that when measured under standardized resting conditions, the o 13 CBT can provide reliable results of EE and be a helpful tool to get more knowledge about ER of dogs of different sizes, breeds and ages.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.771
Threshold uncertainty score0.460

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.262 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations2
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Animal Physiology and Animal NutritionSame topicVeterinary Medicine and SurgeryFrench-language works237,207