The effect of the oral administration of lactic-acid probiotic bacteria on the vaginal microflora of bitches
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction In recent years, probiotics have been increasingly used in companion animals. However, there are few studies on their effect on canine vaginal flora. The objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of orally administrated multi-strain lactic-acid probiotic bacteria on the vaginal flora of healthy bitches. Material and Methods A total of 38 Labrador retriever bitches were given one sachet of multi-strain probiotic with food once a day for nine weeks. Samples for microbiological examination were taken twice (on day 0 and day 63) from the cranial vagina and cultured for aerobic and anaerobic bacteria. Results Bacterial growth was found in 84.2% of the samples on day 0 and in 94.7% of the samples on day 63. Mixed cultures were found in 63.1% of bitches with positive bacterial tests on day 0 and in 73.6% on day 63, and contained a mean 1.8 bacterial strains. An increase in the prevalence of E. coli , Gram-negative rods other than E. coli, Staphylococcus spp. and Streptococcus spp./ Enterococcus spp. was noted after nine weeks (P < 0.05). After the oral administration of the lactic-acid probiotic bacteria, potentially pathogenic Clostridium perfringens, Canicola haemoglobinophilus and Pseudomonas aeruginosa were not isolated. The prevalence of Streptococci other than Streptococcus canis was significantly higher after the administration of the probiotic (26.3% vs 5.3%, P < 0.05), and Enterococcus spp. were isolated in the samples of 28.9% of bitches. There was no increase in the prevalence of Lactobacillus spp. Conclusion The results indicate a beneficial effect of oral lactic-acid probiotic bacteria on the composition of vaginal flora in bitches; however, further research is needed.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".