MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412394219 · doi:10.2460/ajvr.25.04.0151

Colombian Criollo horses’ trot, trocha, and gallop are submaximal oxygen consumption gaits with unique locomotory-respiratory coupling

2025· article· en· W4412394219 on OpenAlexaff
Shannon Massie, Lady Consuelo Calixto Vega, Angélica María Zuluaga Cabrera, Warwick M. Bayly, Renaud Léguillette

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Veterinary Research · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldVeterinary
TopicVeterinary Equine Medical Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVentilation (architecture)Respiratory systemAnimal scienceHeart rateRespiratory minute volumeRespiratory frequencyRespiratory rateSTRIDETidal volumeVO2 maxMedicineAnatomyInternal medicineBiologyPhysicsPhysical medicine and rehabilitationBlood pressure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: Colombian Criollo horses are bred for their smooth gaits that emphasize full collection and rapid footfall. The physiological demands of these gaits remain unknown. Our objective was to determine if oxygen consumption, ventilation, locomotor-respiratory coupling, and running economy differed between the trot or trocha and the gallop. Methods: 7 competition horses completed a controlled design standardized field test between January 10 and 20, 2025. Horses wore a cardiotachometer and ergospirometer to measure heart rate, oxygen consumption, and ventilation at the trot or trocha and the gallop. Locomotor-respiratory coupling and running economy were determined. Measurement differences were analyzed between gaits (paired t test; P < .05). Results: Oxygen consumption and minute ventilation were similar between the trot or trocha (80 ± 12 mL/[kg·min]; 774 ± 113 L/min) and gallop (82 ± 20 mL/[kg·min]; 771 ± 141 L/min). However, respiratory frequency was higher during the trot or trocha (108 ± 20 breaths/min) than gallop (91 ± 11 breaths/min), and tidal volume was lower (7.3 ± 1.8 L vs 8.6 ± 2.3 L). No differences were observed in peak inspiratory or expiratory airflow despite longer inspirations and expirations during the gallop (0.34 ± 0.05 s; 0.32 ± 0.04 s) than the trot or trocha (0.29 ± 0.06 s; 0.28 ± 0.06 s). Stride frequency and heart rate were similar between the trot or trocha (2.3 ± 0.2 strides/s; 159 ± 28 beats/min) and the gallop (2.2 ± 0.1 strides/s; 154 ± 17 beats/min). Locomotor-respiratory coupling was 1.7:1 (±0.6) at the trot or trocha, compared to 3:2 (±0.3) with the gallop. The running economy was lower during the gallop than the trot or trocha. Conclusions: The trot or trocha and gallop represent submaximal exercise. Locomotor-respiratory coupling (> 1:1) and RE differed between gaits. Clinical Relevance: Locomotor-respiratory coupling differed between the trot or trocha and the gallop and was greater than the usual 1:1 observed with 3- and 4-beat gaits.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.625
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.160
GPT teacher head0.448
Teacher spread0.288 · 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.

Study designObservational
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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Veterinary ResearchSame topicVeterinary Equine Medical ResearchFrench-language works237,207