↓ Skip to main content

Body condition scoring as a predictor of body fat in horses and ponies

Overview of attention for article published in Veterinary Journal, May 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (68th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (79th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
patent
1 patent

Readers on

mendeley
240 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
Body condition scoring as a predictor of body fat in horses and ponies
Published in
Veterinary Journal, May 2012
DOI 10.1016/j.tvjl.2012.03.024
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Body condition scoring systems were originally developed to quantify flesh cover in food animals and are commonly used to evaluate body fat in Equidae. The relationship between concurrent estimates of body fat content (eTBF%, deuterium oxide dilution; range, 2.7-35.6%) and subjective appraisals of body 'fatness' (body condition score, BCS; range, 1.25-9/9), was investigated in 77 mature horses and ponies. Univariate (UVM, r(2)=0.79) and multivariable (MVM, r(2)=0.86) linear regression models described the association, where BCS and eTBF% were explanatory and outcome variables, respectively. Other measures (age, sex, breed, body mass, ultrasound-generated subcutaneous and abdominal retroperitoneal fat depths, withers height, heart and belly circumferences) were considered as potential confounders but only height, belly circumference and retroperitoneal fat depth remained in the final MVM. The association between BCS and eTBF% was logarithmic. Appraisal of the transformed regression (UVM), actual eTBF% values and 95%CIs of the model forecast, suggested that the power of log-transformed BCS as a predictor of eTBF% decreased as BCS increased. The receiver operating characteristic curve for the prediction of horses with an eTBF% of >20%, suggested that the UVM correctly classified 76% of horses using a 'cut-off' of BCS 6.83/9 (sensitivity, 82.5%; specificity, 70.8%). Negative values for eTBF% were obtained for two thin ponies which were excluded from analyses, and caution is advised in the application of deuterium dilution methodologies where perturbed tissue hydration could be predicted. The data suggest that BCS descriptors may warrant further consideration/refinement to establish more clinically-useful, sub-classifications for overweight/obese animals.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 240 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 237 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 47 20%
Student > Master 35 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 8%
Student > Postgraduate 18 8%
Researcher 13 5%
Other 32 13%
Unknown 75 31%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 63 26%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 55 23%
Medicine and Dentistry 18 8%
Sports and Recreations 7 3%
Computer Science 3 1%
Other 13 5%
Unknown 81 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 03 December 2020.
All research outputs
#10,342,241
of 34,454,098 outputs
Outputs from Veterinary Journal
#631
of 2,743 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#66,374
of 212,763 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Veterinary Journal
#10
of 48 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,454,098 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,743 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 212,763 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 48 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.