MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1566210814 · doi:10.1071/rdv16n1ab183

183 PREGNANCY RATE FOLLOWING TRANSFER OF IN VITRO- AND IN VIVO-PRODUCED BOVINE EMBRYOS TO LH-TREATED RECIPIENTS

2004· article· en· W1566210814 on OpenAlexaffabout
J. A. Small, M.G. Colazo, D.J. Ambrose, R.J. Mapletoft, J. Reeb, John P. Kastelic

Bibliographic record

VenueReproduction Fertility and Development · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicReproductive Physiology in Livestock
Canadian institutionsSelkirk CollegeUniversity of SaskatchewanAgriculture Food and Rural DevelopmentAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEmbryo transferCryopreservationIn vivoAnimal scienceEmbryoEstrous cycleAndrologyEmbryo cryopreservationCloprostenolEmbryo culturePregnancy rateHorseBeef cattleBiologyChemistryPregnancyMedicineEndocrinologyOvulationHormoneBiotechnology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective was to evaluate the effect of pLH treatment on pregnancy rates in recipients receiving in vivo- or in vitro-produced bovine embryos. Heifers (n = 37) and lactating (n = 28) and non-lactating (n = 150) beef cows were treated at random stages of the cycle with 100 µg GnRH i.m. (Cystorelin, Merial Canada Inc., Victoriaville, Quebec, Canada) on Day -9, 500 µg cloprostenol i.m. (PGF; Estrumate, Schering Plough Animal Health, Pointe-Claire, Quebec, Canada) on Day —2 and GnRH on Day 0 (66 h post-PGF; without estrus detection). Cattle were placed at random, by class, into three groups: no further treatment (Control; n = 71), or 12.5 mg pLH (Lutropin-V, Bioniche Animal Health, Belleville, Ontario, Canada) on Day 5 (n = 72) or on Day 7 (n = 72) after the second GnRH. On Day 7, cattle with a CL > 10 mm in diameter (determined ultrasonically) received in vivo-produced, fresh (Simmental) or frozen (Holstein), or in vitro-produced frozen (Holstein) embryos (embryo type balanced among groups). Embryos were cryopreserved in 10% ethylene glycol; in vivo-produced frozen embryos were thawed 5 to 10 s in air, 15 s in a water-bath at 30°C and then “direct-transferred” nonsurgically. In vitro-produced frozen embryos (donated by IND Lifetech Inc., Delta, British Columbia, Canada) were thawed in a water-bath at 27°C for 10 s and placed in ViGro Holding Plus medium (AB Technology, Pullman, WA, USA) at room temperature, evaluated and then transferred nonsurgically. Pregnancy was determined by ultrasonography on Day 35. Data were analyzed with CATMOD, chi-square and GLM procedures (SAS Institute, Cary, NC, USA.). Twenty cattle (9.3%) did not receive embryos; five heifers had cervical problems, and five heifers and 10 cows did not have a CL >10 mm. Overall, 7.1% of the recipients had two CL on the day of embryo transfer. There was no effect (P > 0.05) of treatment, embryo type (or interaction) or class of recipient on pregnancy rate (overall, 44.1%, 86/195; Table 1). Similarly, mean (±SD) CL diameter and luteal area did not differ (P > 0.05) among groups or between pregnant and open recipients (overall, 22.0 ± 3.4 mm and 352.0 ± 108.7 mm, respectively). However, recipients with a CL diameter =18 mm tended (P < 0.1) to have a higher pregnancy rate (45.8 vs 25.0%). In a subset of 40 recipients examined ultrasonically on Day 12, 50% of those treated on Day 5 and 70% of those treated with pLH on Day 7 had two CL. In summary, overall pregnancy rate in GnRH-synchronized recipients receiving in vitro- or in vivo-produced embryos by nonsurgical transfer was 44.1%. Embryo survival to Day 35 was not affected by type of embryo or treatment with pLH 5 or 7 days after ovulation. Table 1 Pregnancy rate in recipients on Day 35 based on pLH treatment and embryo-type

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.212 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReproduction Fertility and DevelopmentSame topicReproductive Physiology in LivestockFrench-language works237,207