A comparison of the cytobrush and uterine lavage techniques to evaluate endometrial cytology in clinically normal postpartum dairy cows.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".