An Investigation into Equine Nutrition Knowledge and Educational Needs of Equine Veterinarians
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigated equine nutrition knowledge and educational needs of licensed veterinarians in the United States who were exclusively or predominately equine practitioners. It found veterinarians regard their peers as an important resource of nutritional knowledge, ranking ahead of all other sources except a PhD equine nutritionist. Interestingly, only 21% of veterinarians felt good about their knowledge level in equine nutrition after graduating from veterinary school. Although veterinarians in this study reported equine nutrition to be an area of weakness, 75% had not pursued continuing education in the field of nutrition within the last year. Additionally, they devoted only 65 minutes per year on average to improving their knowledge of equine nutrition, yet the majority (82.2%) had been providing nutritional advice to clients. This study revealed that time spent practicing veterinary medicine increases ( p < .001) a veterinarian’s self-perceived knowledge level of equine nutrition, shifting from just below average after graduation from veterinary school to just above average at the time of this study. The majority (70%) of veterinarians in this study believe nutrition is very important in their practice philosophy, and 71% showed interest in taking online continuing education courses; thus, curriculum should be developed and offered in areas of need as identified by this study. These areas include insulin resistance, equine gastric ulcer syndrome, equine metabolic syndrome, performance horses, equine pituitary pars intermedia dysfunction, equine polysaccharide storage myopathy, and arthritis/joint pain, along with how to assess nutritional status during general wellness examinations.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 teacher head, 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".