MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2558922377 · doi:10.1071/rdv29n1ab104

104 FACTORS AFFECTING PREGNANCY RATES AND EMBRYO/FETAL LOSSES IN RECIPIENTS RECEIVING IN VITRO-PRODUCED EMBRYOS BY FIXED-TIME EMBRYO TRANSFER

2016· article· en· W2558922377 sur OpenAlexaff
A. Tríbulo, A. V. Cedeño, Berenice Bernal, S. Andrada, J. L. Barajas, José Antonio Ortega, Juan Mauricio Pardo Oviedo, H. Tríbulo, R. Tríbulo, R.J. Mapletoft, G. A. Bó

Notice bibliographique

RevueReproduction Fertility and Development · 2016
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueReproductive Biology and Fertility
Établissements canadiensUniversity of Saskatchewan
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésCorpus luteumEstradiol benzoateEmbryo transferEmbryoAndrologyPregnancyEndocrinologyProstaglandinInternal medicineHormoneBiologyMedicineOvariectomized rat

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

A retrospective analysis evaluated pregnancy rates and embryo losses with in vitro-produced embryos in a commercial embryo transfer program on 15 different beef farms. Recipients were beef cows and heifers (n = 1841) that were synchronized with 5 different protocols and transferred at a fixed-time (FTET). Recipients were examined by ultrasonography on Day 0, and those with a corpus luteum (CL) or a follicle =8 mm in diameter and with body condition score 2 to 4 (1 to 5 scale) were synchronized. The synchronization treatments were as follows. (T1) Recipients received an intravaginal device with 0.5 g of progesterone plus 2 mg of oestradiol benzoate on Day 0; device removal, plus 500 µg of cloprostenol (prostaglandin F2a), 400 IU of eCG, and 0.5 mg of oestradiol cypionate on Day 8; and FTET on Day 17. (T2) This treatment was similar to T1 but 1 mg of oestradiol cypionate was injected at device removal instead of 0.5 mg of oestradiol cypionate. (T3) This treatment was similar to T1 except that animals were tail-painted on Day 8 and observed on Day 10. Those with the tail-paint intact on Day 10 received 100 µg of gonadorelin (gonadotropin-releasing hormone) and all recipients were FTET on Day 17. (T4) Recipients received a progesterone device on Day 0; device removal, prostaglandin F2a, and eCG on Day 5; gonadotropin-releasing hormone on Day 8; and FTET on Day 15. (T5) Recipients received a progesterone device and 2 mg of oestradiol benzoate on Day 0; device removal, prostaglandin F2a, and eCG on Day 6; gonadotropin-releasing hormone on Day 9; and FTET on Day 16. On the day of FTET all recipients with CL =18 mm in diameter (G1), =16 and <18 mm in diameter (G2), and =14 mm and <16 mm in diameter (G3) received in vitro-produced fresh embryos. Pregnancy was diagnosed by ultrasonography at 30 and 60 days of gestation, and data were analysed by logistic regression. The overall proportion of recipients synchronized that were FTET was 80.8% (1487/1841), with a 30-day pregnancy rate to FTET (P/FTET) of 45.6% (678/1487) and the rate of 30- to 60-day embryo/fetal loses on the 528 recipients that were re-checked at 60 days was 12.8% (68/528). There were no significant differences in P/FTET among operators, animal category, time of the year, embryo stage, or body condition score; however, there was a significant effect of farm (P < 0.001) and CL diameter (P < 0.05), but no interaction between CL diameter and farm or treatment (P > 0.1). Recipients with G1 (443/953, 46%) and G2 (221/462, 47%) CL had higher pregnancy rates than those with G3 CL (23/71, 32%). There was a significant effect of synchronization treatment on the proportion of recipients transferred and on P/FTET (P < 0.01) that was highly influenced by farm (farm by treatment interaction P < 0.01). The proportions of recipients selected for embryo transfer were as follows: T1: 386/486, 79.4%; T2: 233/331, 70.3%; T3: 342/377, 90.7%; T4: 126/160, 78.7%; and T5: 400/487, 82.1%. The P/FTET were as follows: T1: 190/386, 49.2%; T2: 96/233, 41.2%; T3: 175/342, 51.1%; T4: 49/126, 38.8%; and T5: 168/400, 42.0%. Although 30- to 60-day embryo/fetal losses were not influenced by synchronization treatments, they were highly influenced by farm (P < 0.001) and ranged from 0 to 34.5%. In conclusion, P/FTET in a commercial program with beef in vitro-produced embryos was influenced by factors related to the recipient (CL diameter) and the environment (farm), whereas embryo/fetal losses were influenced by farm but not treatment or recipient factors.

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 machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,001
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,006

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0010,000

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,023
Tête enseignante GPT0,263
Écart entre enseignants0,240 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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 découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations2
Publié2016
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueReproduction Fertility and Development→Même sujetReproductive Biology and Fertility→Travaux en français237 207→