The effects of galacto-oligosaccharides on faecal parameters in healthy dogs and cats
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of galacto-oligosaccharides (GOS) on faecal parameters in healthy dogs and cats. To this end, 20 dogs and 20 Domestic shorthair cats were fed a commercially available adult dog food, or cat food, respectively, with either syrup containing GOS (at 1% w galacto-oligosaccharides/w formulated feed) on top (test group) or no topping (control group) for 56 days in a cross-over design. The study consisted of 2 periods of 24 days adaptation, followed by 4 days of collection of faeces. Faecal samples were tested for moisture, nitrogen, pH, macronutrients, enzymes, and fermentation products. The faecal microbiota were analysed by 16S rDNA profiling. It appeared that GOS have different effects in dogs compared to cats. In dogs, the addition of GOS resulted in increased carbohydrate fermentation (increase of acetic and butyric acid), whereas in cats GOS resulted in increased amino acid fermentation (increase of isovaleric acid). The α-diversity of the canine faecal microbiota was reduced by dietary GOS (Inverse Simpson Index, p = 0.063; Shannon index, p = 0.035) whereas the α-diversity of cat faecal microbiota was unaffected (Inverse Simpson Index, p = 0.539; Shannon index, p = 0.872). Lachnospiraceae spp. and Bifidobacterium spp. positively responded to GOS in both cats and dogs. Lactobacillus spp. and Enterobacteriaceae spp. positively responded to GOS in dogs. In both dogs and cats, GOS may therefore improve stool microbiota and result in the production of specific metabolites that are beneficial to gut health.
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 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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it