MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1648853647 · doi:10.1071/rdv17n2ab54

54 COMPOSITION OF ALLANTOIC FLUID IN CATTLE PREGNANT WITH AI-, IVP-, OR NUCLEAR TRANSFER-GENERATED EMBRYOS

2004· article· en· W1648853647 on OpenAlexafffund
C. J. Morrow, Martin Berg, R.M. McDonald, David N. Wells, A. J. Peterson, R. Lee

Bibliographic record

VenueReproduction Fertility and Development · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer Risks and Factors
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaOntario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs
KeywordsAmniotic fluidFetusAndrologyGestationBiologyPregnancyArtificial inseminationInseminationEmbryo transferPlacentationObstetricsPlacentaMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abnormal placentation, pregnancy failure, and hydroallantois are associated with somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) in cattle. Identification of diagnostic markers for abnormal placentation in early gestation would permit therapeutic intervention. Ultrasonography and transvaginal sampling of amniotic and/or allantoic (fetal) fluid enables regular monitoring of fetal health. We report on the composition of serial samples of fetal fluid from individual cows between Days 70–130 of gestation and the potential of steroid and electrolyte composition as an early diagnostic marker for the subsequent occurrence of hydroallantois in SCNT pregnancies in cattle. On Day 70, pregnancy rates were 50% and 60% for cows or heifers implanted with single in vitro-fertilized (IVP, 20/40) or SCNT (25/42) embryos, respectively, and 67% for pregnancies generated by artificial insemination (AI, 12/18). Resulting fetuses were either clones (SCNT) or offspring (IVP/AI) of a donor Holstein bull. Fetal fluids, sampled using ultrasound-guided transvaginal puncture, were collected on Days 70, 100, and 130 of gestation (n = 12 and 139 for amniotic and allantoic samples, respectively). Placental and fetal morphological data were collected following slaughter between Days 135–163 of gestation (n = 14, 20, and 10 for SCNT, IVP, and AI groups, respectively). Fetal fluids were analyzed for progesterone, estrone sulphate, sodium, chloride, potassium, creatinine, urea, calcium, magnesium and phosphate. Pregnancy outcomes for the SCNT group were retrospectively classified as: Fail 100 (pregnancies failing between Days 70–99; n = 6); Fail 130 (failing between Days 100–129; n = 5); Hydrops (greater than 10 L combined amniotic and allantoic fluid at postmortem between Days 135–163; n = 8) and SCNT Pregnant 150 (pregnant between Days 135–163; n = 6). IVP and AI pregnancies were classified as IVP or AI Pregnant 150. Fluid composition was analyzed by ANOVA on log-transformed data. On Day 70, allantoic progesterone and estrone sulphate concentrations were significantly higher (P < 0.05) for the SCNT cows compared to the IVP/AI Pregnant 150 cows. On Day 70, allantoic potassium, chloride, creatinine, and urea concentrations were significantly higher (P < 0.05) for the SCNT Hydrops cows compared to the IVP/AI Pregnant 150 cows. In addition, Day 70 allantoic creatinine and urea concentrations were significantly higher (P < 0.05) for the SCNT Hydrops cows compared to other SCNT groups. By Day 100, allantoic chloride, creatinine, and urea concentrations in SCNT Hydrops cows were significantly lower (P < 0.05) than in IVP/AI Pregnant 150 groups. We conclude that elevated Day 70 allantoic urea and creatinine concentrations are potential early diagnostic markers predicting hydroallantois in recipient cattle carrying SCNT fetuses. Further investigation of these markers in other somatic donor cell lines used for nuclear transfer is warranted to determine their general utility.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.258
Teacher spread0.232 · 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 designObservational
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 topicCancer Risks and FactorsFrench-language works237,207