A comparison of the cytobrush and uterine lavage techniques to evaluate endometrial cytology in clinically normal postpartum dairy cows.
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study compares cytobrush and lavage techniques for the assessment of endometrial cytology (EC) in clinically normal postpartum dairy cows. The EC samples were collected from Holstein cows (n = 35) during visit 1 (V1) at 20 to 33 d in milk (DIM) and 2 wk later during visit 2 (V2) at 34 to 47 DIM by using both techniques. A minimum of 100 cells were counted to determine the percentage of cells that were neutrophils (%PMN). The mean %PMN was significantly different between the techniques at V1 (P = 0.001), but not at V2 (P = 0.474). Overall, the %PM N decreased with time postpartum (r2 = 0.36; P = 0.001), but not within V1 (P > 0.05) or V2 (P > 0.1). Uterine diameter was negatively correlated with fluid recovery by the lavage technique (r2 = 0.41; P = 0.002). The mean %PMN was not influenced by the volume of fluid recovered in successful attempts, but 17% (12/70) of attempts yielded no fluid. In conclusion, the cytobrush technique is a consistent and reliable method for obtaining endometrial samples for cystologic examination from postpartum dairy cows.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it