Workload and spirometry associated with untethered swimming in horses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Swimming has been used empirically for rehabilitation and conditioning of horses. However, due to challenges imposed by recording physiological parameters in water, the intensity of free swimming effort is unknown. Objectives Measure the physiological workload associated with untethered swimming in horses. Five fit Arabian endurance horses were assessed while swimming in a 100 m-long indoor pool. Horses were equipped with a modified ergospirometry facemask to measure oxygen consumption (V̇O2) and ventilatory parameters (inspired/expired volumes, VI, VE; peak inspiratory/expiratory flows, PkVI, PkVE; respiratory frequency, Rf; minute ventilation, VE; inspiratory/expiratory durations and ratios, tI, tE, tI/ttot, tE/ttot); and an underwater electrocardiogram that recorded heart rate (HR). Postexercise venous blood lactate and ammonia concentrations were measured. Data are reported as median (interquartile ranges). Results Horses showed bradypnea (12 breaths/min (10–16)) for the first 30 s of swimming. V̇O2 during swimming was 43.2 ml/(kg.min) (36.0–56.6). Ventilatory parameters were: VI = 16.7 L (15.3–21.8), VE = 14.7 L (12.4–18.9), PkVI = 47.8 L/s (45.8–56.5), PkVE = 55.8 L/s (38.3–72.5), Rf = 31.4 breaths/min (20.0–33.8), VE = 522.9 L/min (414.7–580.0), tI = 0.5 s (0.5–0.6), tE = 1.2 s (1.1–1.6), tI/ttot = 0.3 (0.2–0.4), tE/ttot = 0.7 (0.6–0.8). Expiratory flow tracings showed marked oscillations that coincided with a vibrating expiratory sound. HR was 178.0 bpm (148.5–182.0), lactate = 1.5 mmol/L (1.0–1.9) and ammonia = 41.0 µmol/L (36.5–43.5). Conclusions Free (untethered) swimming represents a submaximal, primarily aerobic exercise in horses. The breathing pattern during swimming is unique, with a relatively longer apneic period at the beginning of the exercise and an inspiratory time less than half that of expiration.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".