The Effects of Feeding and Fasting on Gastrointestinal Sounds in Adult Horses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The effect of changes in feed intake on auscultatable gastrointestinal sounds has not been systematically studied. Disagreement also is present in the literature about variation in sounds according to the quadrant of auscultation. Gastrointestinal sounds were recorded over the center of the left dorsal, left ventral, right ventral, and right dorsal quadrants and over the middle of the right abdominal flank. During 24 hours (n = 4) or 48 hours (n = 5) of fasting, there was a reduction in the intensity of gastrointestinal sounds as assessed by analysis of sound recordings. There was also a reduction in the number of mixing-like and propulsive-like sounds heard by 2 blinded observers. After refeeding, there was a marked increase in sound. Sound intensity varied among abdominal quadrants, but blinded observers did not notice significant differences in the number of mixing-like sounds. The left dorsal quadrant was quieter than others during fasting and refeeding. The right ventral quadrant appeared to be least affected by fasting, and sounds were louder over the right ventral and right middle quadrants than over the others. The blinded observers' perceptions of sound correlated poorly with one another and with objective measures of sound intensity. This experiment demonstrates the effectiveness of computerized analysis of abdominal sound in detecting a reduction in the intensity of gastrointestinal sounds during fasting and their return during refeeding. The left dorsal quadrant was quieter than other quadrants, likely because of its position over the small colon. There was considerable observer variation in the number of intestinal sounds heard.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".