Potent health-promoting effects of a synbiotic formulation prepared from Lactobacillus acidophilus NCDC15 fermented milk and Cichorium intybus root powder in Labrador dogs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To ascertain potent health-promoting effects of a synbiotic prepared using a combination of Lactobacillus acidophilus NCDC15 fermented milk and Cichorium intybus root powder in Labrador dogs, 15 Labrador adult female dogs were randomly distributed into three groups following a completely randomized design. Group I was fed a homemade basal diet alone and served as control (CON), while the other two groups were fed the same basal diet supplemented with low- (LSL) and high- levels (HSL) of the synbiotic. The experiment duration was of 9-weeks. The results of the study indicated that there were no variations (P > 0.05) among the groups with respect to voluntary food intake and digestibility of DM, OM, CP and EE. However, the digestibility of crude fibre tended (P = 0.051) to be higher in both the supplemented groups as compared to CON. Physical characteristics of faeces remained unaltered (P > 0.05) due to dietary treatments. However, faecal lactate was increased (P < 0.05) in both the synbiotic fed groups with a concomitant reduction in faecal ammonia compared to control. The faecal lactobacilli and bifidobacteria population exhibited higher (P < 0.05) counts in LSL and HSL groups than the CON. There was a lower population of clostridia and coliform in LSL and HSL groups than in CON. The delayed-type hypersensitivity response to PHA-P and antibody response to sheep erythrocytes showed improved (P < 0.05) immune status in response to dietary synbiotic supplementation. Overall, the findings of this study led to the conclusion that the synbiotic preparation has a beneficial impact on canine gastrointestinal health and immunity, and the response to synbiotic supplementation at lower and higher doses was similar.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 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".