MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392296275 · doi:10.3390/ani14050758

Current Understanding of Equine Gut Dysbiosis and Microbiota Manipulation Techniques: Comparison with Current Knowledge in Other Species

2024· article· en· W4392296275 on OpenAlexaff
Laurie Boucher, L. Leduc, Mathilde Leclère, Márcio Costa

Bibliographic record

VenueAnimals · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGut microbiota and health
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDysbiosisFecal bacteriotherapyGut floraAntibioticsBiologyImmunologyMedicineMicrobiologyClostridium difficile

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Understanding the importance of intestinal microbiota in horses and the factors influencing its composition have been the focus of many studies over the past few years. Factors such as age, diet, antibiotic administration, and geographic location can affect the gut microbiota. The intra- and inter-individual variability of fecal microbiota in horses complicates its interpretation and has hindered the establishment of a clear definition for dysbiosis. Although a definitive causal relationship between gut dysbiosis in horses and diseases has not been clearly identified, recent research suggests that dysbiosis may play a role in the pathogenesis of various conditions, such as colitis and asthma. Prebiotics, probiotics, and fecal microbiota transplantation to modulate the horse's gastrointestinal tract may eventually be considered a valuable tool for preventing or treating diseases, such as antibiotic-induced colitis. This article aims to summarize the current knowledge on the importance of intestinal microbiota in horses and factors influencing its composition, and also to review the published literature on methods for detecting dysbiosis while discussing the efficacy of gut microbiota manipulation in horses.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.369
Threshold uncertainty score0.415

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.078
GPT teacher head0.357
Teacher spread0.278 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations24
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnimalsSame topicGut microbiota and healthFrench-language works237,207