The Effect of Dietary Synbiotics in Actively Racing Standardbred Horses Receiving Trimethoprim/Sulfadiazine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Synbiotics are often provided to horses receiving antibiotics to protect against microbiome disturbances, despite a lack of evidence for efficacy. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of a synbiotic product in horses receiving antibiotics. Sixteen actively racing Standardbred horses were randomly allocated (four-way crossover) to one of four groups: antibiotics (10 days; AB), synbiotics (28 days; PROBIOPlusTM; PBP), PBP + AB, or Control. The fecal microbiome was investigated using 16S rRNA sequencing, and fecal dry matter (DM; %), pH, and scores (FS; 0–9) were measured. Data were analyzed with two-way ANOVA. Results found microbiota differences in community membership between PBP + AB and all other treatments during and after antibiotic treatment. During antibiotic treatment, AB and PBP + AB were significantly different from Control. After antibiotic treatment, PBP + AB was significantly different from all other treatments. The few differences found in relative abundance of phyla or predominant genera were mostly in fiber degrading bacteria. The Fibrobacter population was significantly higher in AB and PBP + AB horses than Control. Unclassified Ruminococcaceae was significantly higher in Control than AB and PBP. After antibiotic treatment, PBP + AB horses were significantly higher than PBP horses. In conclusion, these data provide support for the ability of PROBIOPlus™ to maintain healthy gastrointestinal microbiome during antibiotic treatment.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".