Ultrasonography for Monitoring Reproductive Function in the Bull
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Diagnostic ultrasonography has been widely used for examination of the reproductive tract of female cattle, but more sparingly in bulls. Typical clinical ultrasonographic examinations of bull testes are unlikely to affect semen quality or sperm production. The ultrasonographic anatomy of bull testes and accessory sex glands has been reported. Although testicular echogenicity increased (i.e. the parenchyma appeared more white) as a bull approached puberty, echogenicity was not superior to scrotal circumference as a predictor of puberty. Ultrasonography can be used to detect and characterize testicular pathology. It is noteworthy that areas of increased echogenicity (testicular fibrosis) are common, especially in young bulls, but are not associated with decreased semen quality (e.g. percentage of morphologically abnormal sperm). Neither visual evaluation nor computerized pixel analysis of testicular ultrasonic echotexture was consistently predictive of semen quality in bulls. Therefore, we concluded that the primary clinical use of ultrasonography in assessment of reproductive function in the bull is characterization of grossly detectable lesions in the testes and scrotum.
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 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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".