174 COMPARISON OF ORAL ALTRENOGEST, CIDR, AND LONG-ACTING PROGESTERONE FOR SYNCHRONIZATION OF ESTRUS IN MARES
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Synchronization of oestrus in mares remains a challenge to practitioners using Assisted Reproductive Technologies. The research objective was to compare adverse reactions and reproductive parameters in mares treated with different sources of progestins for oestrus synchronization. Mixed breeds of mares with a mean age of 3 years (range 2–20) were used. Groups were: 1) altrenogest 0.044 mg kg–1 BW PO daily for 10 days (D) (Regumate, Merck, White House Station, NJ, USA) (n = 30), 2) Long-acting progesterone (LAP4) (BET Pharmacy, Lexington, KY, USA) (n = 30) 10 cc IM once in the neck, and 3) Controlled intravaginal drug release (CIDR-B 1.9 g P4; Zoetis, Kirkland, QC, Canada) (n = 15) vaginal insert for 10 days. Mares were randomly assigned to treatment and evaluated using transrectal reproductive ultrasonography on Days 1 (treatment initiation), 5, 10, and daily during oestrus until ovulation (Ov). On Day 10, mares were given 250 µg of cloprostenol (PG) (Estrumate, Merck) IM, and when a follicle (F) >35 mm was detected 2500 IU hCG (Chorulon, Intervet, Millsboro, MD, USA) was administered IM. Adverse reactions were scored as follows: Regumate – any reaction at any time; LAP4 – the injection site was inspected and scored as: 0, no reaction; 1, mild slight raised area; 2, moderate reaction 5 cm; 3, severe reaction 6–10 cm; 4, very severe reaction >10 cm on Day 5 post-injection; CIDR categorical scores were: 0, no discharge; 1, mild vaginal discharge on CIDR at withdrawal; 2, moderate discharge on tail or vulva; 3, severe urine scald or visible discharge; 4, very severe thickened inflamed skin from urine scald or discharge. Chi-squared test at P < 0.05 was used to evaluate the overall frequency of reactions in mares, and the presence of intrauterine fluid. The time from cloprostenol (PG) to F 35, hCG to Ov, PG to Ov, and mm of intrauterine fluid on Days 1–3, was evaluated using the Shapiro–Wilk test and Kruskall–Wallis at P < 0.05. Results of the overall adverse reactions were: Group 1 0/30 (0%), Group 2 9/30 (30%), and Group 3 14/15 (93.3%). The Group 2 treatment resulted in category 0–4 reactions as follows (21/30, 1/30, 5/30, 2/30, 1/30) and for Group 3 category 0–4 (1/15, 13/15, 0/15, 1/15, 0/15), respectively. The overall frequency of adverse reactions was significantly different between groups (P = 0.0000) with Group 2 having the highest rate. Reproductive parameter results were median (quartiles) days from PG to F35 for groups 1–3 respectively: 4 (2.8–6), 5 (0–6), 3 (4–6), hours from hCG to OV: 42(42–42), 42 (42–72), 42 (43–54); and days from PG to OV: 8 (4.5–8), 8 (5–8), 6.6 (4.8–8). Fluid Day 1, Day 2, Day 3 had a median of 0 mm on all days, and on Day 3 mm of fluid was mild 0 (0–0.125) but different between groups (P = 0.0379). The detection of intrauterine fluid on Day 2 (P = 0.005) was different between groups. No follicle wave synchronization was achieved by progestin administration; hence, the main differences noted between groups were the frequency of adverse reactions, rather than the reproductive parameters studied. The cost of the treatment and the frequency of adverse reactions are important considerations when choosing an oestrus synchronization therapy for mares. Research was supported by the Alberta Agriculture Research Institute.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».