Evaluación del semen canino, sometido a congelación con diferentes concentraciones de glicerol como crioprotector
Bibliographic record
Abstract
El estudio de las biotecnologias usadas con fines reproductivos en caninos, constituye uno de los principales puntos de estudio investigativo para el campo de la Medicina Veterinaria y la Zootecnia en los ultimos anos 28. Con el objetivo de evaluar el efecto de tres diferentes concentraciones de glicerol sobre el semen canino sometido a procesos de criopreservacion, se obtuvieron por medio de manipulacion manual, 12 muestras seminales de machos de la raza labrador, clinicamente sanos y sometidos a las mismas condiciones de manejo. Cada muestra se dividio en cuatro tratamientos (T1: control, T2: 4%, T3: 6% y T4: 8% de glicerol); a los cuales se les evaluo el volumen, pH, movilidad, concentracion, morfologia y vitalidad, respectivamente. Luego en el analisis pos descongelacion se determinaron las diferencias seminales y se establecio su relacion con la concentracion del crioprotector. De los resultados obtenidos en este proyecto se encontraron diferencias significativas entre las variables morfologia, mortalidad y concentracion, igualmente se establecio que los tratamientos T2 (4% de glicerol) y T3 (6% de glicerol) presentaron mejores resultados para la congelacion de semen en caninos. Abstract The study of biotechnology used in canines for reproductive purposes, is a of the principal research study points to the area of Veterinary Medicine in last years28. In the objective to evaluate the effect of three different concentrations of glycerol on canine semen, to subjected cryo-preservation process, were obtained using manual manipulation, 12 semen samples of male Labrador clinically healthy and subject to the same driving conditions. Each sample was divided in four treatments (T1: control, T2: 4%, T3: T4 6% and 8% glycerol), to which they evaluated the volume, pH, motility, concentration, morphology and vitality, respectively. Then in the analysis were determined after thawing seminal differences and its relationship to the concentration of cryoprotectant. From the results obtained in this project are significant differences between the variables morphology, mortality and concentration, also established that T2 (4% glycerol) and T3 (6% glycerol) provide better results for freezing semen canines. Resumo O estudo da biotecnologia utilizada em caes para fins reprodutivos constitui um dos principais pontos de pesquisa para o campo da medicina veterinaria e zootecnia nos ultimos anos28. Com o objetivo de se avaliar o efeito de tres diferentes concentracoes de glicerol sobre semen canino submetidos a processos crioconservacao, foram obtidas por meio de manipulacao manual 12 amostras de semen de Labrador macho, clinicamente saudaveis e submetidas as mesmas condicoes de manejo. Cada amostra foi dividida em quatro tratamentos (T1: controle, T2: 4%, T3: 6% e T4: 8% de glicerol), os quais foram avaliados quanto ao volume, pH, mobilidade, concentracao, morfologia e vitalidade, respectivamente. Nas analises pos descongelamento foram determinadas as diferencas entre os semens e se estabeleceu uma relacao com a concentracao do crioprotetor. A partir dos resultados obtidos neste trabalho foram encontradas diferencas significativas entre a variavel morfologia, mortalidade e concentracao e tambem ficou estabelecido que T2 (4% de glicerol) e T3 (6% de glicerol) apresentaram os melhores resultados para o congelamento de semen em caninos.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".