Steamed hay and alfalfa pellets for the management of severe equine asthma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Steaming hay significantly reduces respirable particles and provides a palatable alternative to dry hay for horses with asthma, but there are few prospective studies demonstrating the clinical efficacy of steamed hay. Objectives To compare the efficacy of alfalfa pellets and steamed hay in improving lung function and inflammation of horses with severe asthma (SEA). Study Design Controlled crossover study. Methods Ten horses with SEA were enrolled and nine completed the study. Horses were housed indoors and fed hay. Once in exacerbation, they were fed pellets and steamed hay for 4 weeks, in a crossover design. Weighted clinical scores and lung function were recorded weekly. Bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BALF) cytology and mucus scores were recorded before and after each diet. Results Based on linear mixed model (LMM) analysis, weighted clinical scores significantly improved over time ( p < 0.001, no diet effect or time‐diet interactions). With pellets, weighted clinical scores decreased from (median (interquartile range)) 13 (5.5) to 2 (1.5), while with steamed hay, they decreased from 10 (9.5) to 6 (8.5). With pellets, lung resistance decreased significantly from a baseline of (mean (SD)) 2.62 (0.77) cmH 2 O/L/s to 1.17 (0.66), 0.79 (0.54), 0.70 (0.20), 0.62 (0.18) on Weeks 1–4, respectively (LMM with post hoc tests, p < 0.001). With steamed hay, the resistance decreased significantly from a baseline of 2.34 (0.93) cmH 2 O/L/s to 1.38 (0.49) and 1.51 (0.66) on Weeks 1 and 2, respectively ( p < 0.03). Neutrophils BALF decreased significantly with both diets (pellets: 40.2 (24.4) to 20.1 (11.0) %; steamed hay 30.9 (20.2) to 25.7 (17.6) %; LMM, p = 0.006). Main Limitations A small number of horses in a research setting. Dust was not measured in the stalls. Conclusions Clinical scores, lung function and BALF inflammation of horses with SEA improved with steamed hay and pellets, but the effect on lung function was more pronounced with pellets.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".