Evaluation of the Uroanalysis Values of Canines Supplemented With Porcine Peptides and Ascorbic Acid
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Bioactive peptides have considerable animal health promoting properties. The effects of supplementation with collagen peptides and vitamin C (PolyPet®) on urinalysis were evaluated in a total of 24 Labrador retrievers with similar feeding and handling characteristics randomly selected into three groups (control group, group 1, and group 1). 2). The treatments consisted of supplementing a group with 6.6 gr daily with PolyPet®, group 2 with 3.3 gr and the last group (control group) without any supplementation. Urine samples were taken at days 0, 30 and 60 from the 24 canines in the study. The urinalysis parameters evaluated were protein, ascorbic acid, urinary protein/urinary creatinine ratio (UP/UC), nitrites, specific gravity, crystalluria, pH, calciuria, odor, creatinuria, and body weight. It was determined that there was no significant difference between the values of urinary protein presence, in group 1 the UP/UC ratio increased slightly. In the presence of crystals, there was no significant difference compared to the three groups. For amorphous urate and uric acid crystals, there was an increase with porcine collagen peptide supplementation and the variables triple phosphate, struvite crystals and weight loss were positively affected by supplementation. The use of collagen peptides and vitamin C (PolyPet®) demonstrated positive effects on the health of canines, being considered as a safe food for healthy individuals.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".