MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414830837 · doi:10.1093/jas/skaf300.531

PSVIII-10 The Impact of PROFORMIX|PET on gastrointestinal and metabolic health in puppies.

2025· article· en· W4414830837 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ashley L. Wagner, Olivia A Martin, Heidi Armbrust, C. Timlin, Fiona B Mccracken, Jason W Fowler, C.N. Coon, I.D. Girard

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Animal Science · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiet and metabolism studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPuppyDiarrheaImmune systemQuality of life (healthcare)TributyrinBody weightWeight lossImmune status

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Weaning is psychologically and physiologically stressful. The psychological impact has been shown to increase the physiological stress response, alter immune function, and impact intestinal morphology and integrity. These physiological changes may create health challenges and diarrhea that may have lasting impacts throughout the lifespan. As a result, the use of supplements by puppy pet parents is on the rise to help combat gastrointestinal distress. PROFORMIX|PET (Probiotech International Inc.), a proprietary blend of tributyrin and polyphenols, has been shown to reduce inflammation post-exercise in dogs. Therefore, the objective of the current study was to evaluate gastrointestinal, metabolic, and immune markers in puppies. Twenty Labrador Retriever puppies (16-18 weeks; 2 litters; BWT:15.6±1.38kg) were blocked by litter, sex, and body weight and allocated to two treatments for the 30-day trial: Control- PureVitaTM grain-free turkey and sweet potato for all life stages (Nutrisource®, KLN Family Brands) fed to manufacturer’s recommendations or Treatment- Control plus 500mg PROFORMIX|PET per day. Puppies were blocked by litter, sex, age and weight. Physical wellness parameters were examined throughout the trial including body weight, stool quality and a clinical assessment. Immune, metabolic, and gastrointestinal health parameters were assessed at day 0 and 30. Statistical analysis was performed in SASv9.3 with a PROC MIXED and repeated measures. In cases where both a time and treatment main effect were found significant, contrasts were performed to compare simple effect differences of time within treatment. There was no impact (P>0.05) of treatment*time, treatment or time on stool scores and clinical assessments; all puppies were clinically healthy. Body weight increased (P< 0.0001) with time in both treatments (BWT d30: Control:20.6; Treatment:20.8±0.34kg). Although treatment*time was not significant, there was an impact of treatment (P=0.0003) and time (P=0.002) on CRP. When the time effect was compared within treatment, there was a more significant decline (-66%; P=0.0009) compared to control (-52%; P=0.06) from d0 to 30. Insulin was not affected by treatment*time (P=0.44) or treatment (P=0.26) but declined with time (P=0.04) in both groups. However, there was a treatment*time effect (P=0.03) on glucose with an increase at day 30 in control puppies (105.1±1.0mg/dL) and a decrease in treatment puppies (101.1±1.0mg/dL). This may indicate that PROFORMIX|PET has an impact on insulin efficiency, but more research is warranted. Fecal a1-PI, a marker of intestinal integrity, decreased with time (P< 0.0001) as expected with aging; however, there was a greater decline (-56%, P< 0.0001) in treatment puppies compared to control puppies (-46%, P =0.04) when the time effect was evaluated within treatment. There was no effect of treatment*time (P=0.44) or treatment (P=0.66) on fecal a1-PI. This initial evaluation of PROFORMIX|PET in puppies demonstrated positive impacts on puppy wellness. More research is warranted to confirm these initial findings.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.343 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Animal ScienceSame topicDiet and metabolism studiesFrench-language works237,207