MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A High-Protein, High-Fiber Diet Designed for Weight Loss Improves Satiety in Dogs

2007· article· en· W4230805141 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Veterinary Internal Medicine · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldVeterinary
TopicVeterinary Medicine and Surgery
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersRoyal Canin
KeywordsPalatabilityMedicineHigh proteinMealAnimal scienceFood scienceWeight lossFood intakeHigh-protein dietPet foodFood preferenceCrossover studyObesityInternal medicineBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background: Weight-loss programs for dogs are often hampered by increased begging and scavenging behavior that ensues when food intake is restricted. Hypothesis: A diet formulated to contain a high content of both protein and fiber is more satiating than diets that contain only high fiber or high protein. Animals: Six entire female adult dogs (2 Shetland Sheepdogs, 2 Brittany Spaniels, 2 Labrador Retrievers) participated in the satiety studies; 105 adult female dogs of various breeds and ages were used for the palatability studies. Methods: Three diets (high protein [103 g/1,000 kcal] high fiber [60 g/1,000 kcal] [HPHF]; high protein [104 g/1,000 kcal] moderate fiber [35 g/1,000 kcal] [HP]; moderate protein [86 g/1,000 kcal] high fiber [87 g/1,000 kcal] [HF]) were tested. Voluntary food intake was measured in 5 sequential crossover studies, and palatability was assessed with food preference tests. Results: Protein digestibility was significantly lower for HF (mean ± SD; 77.7%± 2.52%) than for both HPHF (81.1%± 0.96%) and HP (81.1%± 1.65%) (P < .001). Short-term food intake (food ingested when offered for 15 minutes every hour for 4 hours) was lower for HPHF than for both HP and HF (P= .038). Medium-term intake (food ingested when offered 3 hours after first meal) was lower for both HPHF (27 ± 22.2 kcal/kg0.73) and HF (41 ± 6.8 kcal/kg0.73) than for HP (57 ± 18.8 kcal/kg0.73) (P= .041). Voluntary food intake 3 hours after feeding a restricted meal (25% daily maintenance energy requirements) was significantly lower on the HPHF diet than on either the HP (-51%, P= .0051) or HF (-47%, P= .014) diets. However, there was no significant difference between the energy intake on the HP and HF diets (7%, P= .37). The HPHF and HP diets had equivalent palatability, and both were more palatable than the HF diet (P < .001). Conclusions and Clinical Importance: The HPHF diet had a satiating effect as evidenced by reduced voluntary intake compared with HP and HF diets, and has the potential to lead to greater compliance in weight-loss programs.

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.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.787
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.289 · 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