Extruded diet macronutrient digestibility: plant-based (vegan) vs. animal-based diets in client-owned healthy adult dogs and the impact of guardian compliance during in-home trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Plant-based (vegan) diets for dogs are commercially available, however, research investigating long-term nutritional adequacy of these diets is scarce. Use of client-owned animals has become increasingly popular for apparent total-tract nutrient digestibility (ATTD) studies, yet low guardian compliance with the study protocol, such as providing daily dietary intake information, is a challenge. However, the impact of low diet reporting compliance on the overall ATTD results is unknown. Methods Sixty-one, client-owned healthy adult dogs completed a randomized, double-blinded longitudinal study. Dogs were randomly assigned into two groups that were fed either a commercial extruded meat-based diet (MEAT, n=30) or an experimental extruded vegan diet (PLANT, n=31) for 12 weeks. At the end of the study, pet guardians performed a 72-hour total fecal collection for ATTD assessment. Pet guardians were asked to complete a food diary for the duration of the trial, however only a subset of guardians (n=35) provided this food diary at the end of the study. Results No evidence of an association between pet guardians providing a food diary and apparent digestibility coefficients (ADC) of crude protein (CP) (p=0.14), crude fat (EE) (p=0.72), and dry matter (DM) (p=0.68) was found. Apparent digestibility coefficients for CP (p=0.52), EE (p=0.78), and DM (p=0.43) did not differ between PLANT and MEAT. Body weight and age were found to be associated with CP (p=0.03) and DM (p=0.01) digestibility, but no association with EE (p=0.07) digestibility was present. Discussion These results indicate that vegan- and animal-based diets with similar nutrient profiles can have comparable nutrient digestibility. Moreover, presence or absence of a guardian-reported food diary had no effect on the overall results of the ATTD study. Further studies investigating guardian compliance for ATTD trials are needed to develop a standardized protocol and reduce current challenges and limitations related to pet guardian’s participation in digestibility trials.
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 | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".