Amino acid profiles for red wolves (Canis rufus) managed under human care are significantly different compared to the profiles of domestic dogs (Canis familiaris)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To establish a reference interval for amino acid profiles for healthy red wolves (Canis rufus). METHODS: Heparinized plasma of 48 red wolves was collected between August 2023 and April 2024 and sent to the University of California-Davis Amino Acid Laboratory for analysis. Reference intervals were created using the published American Society for Veterinary Clinical Pathology reference interval guidelines. Data were analyzed via Gaussian data distribution, and parametric statistical methods were used to produce a 90% CI of reference limits. The means of the red wolf intervals created were compared to those of the domestic dog using a z test. RESULTS: Reference intervals were created for red wolves (n = 48). Upon completion of the z test, 11 of 21 amino acids were found to be statistically significantly different compared to those of the domestic dog. CONCLUSIONS: A reference interval was created for red wolves. The red wolf amino acid profiles are different than those of the domestic dog, with 52% (11/21) of the profiles being statistically different. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Red wolf amino acid profiles should not be compared to those of the domestic dog reference intervals due to the significant difference between profiles.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".