MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1964918034 · doi:10.1071/rdv20n1ab159

159 TECHNIQUES FOR OVUM PICK-UP IN GONADOTROPIN-TREATED ALPACAS

2007· article· en· W1964918034 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
G. Gamarra, A. Gallegos, E. Alvarado, M. Asparrin, W. Vivanco

Bibliographic record

VenueReproduction Fertility and Development · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicReproductive Physiology in Livestock
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEstradiol benzoateSyringeFollicular fluidMedicineFollicular phaseAndrologyLaparotomyOocyteGynecologyBiologyInternal medicineEmbryoSurgeryEstrogen

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective of the present study was to evaluate the quantity and quality of oocytes collected when using 2 methods for ovum pick-up and 2 different regimens for ovarian stimulation in live alpaca donors. Thirty-four non-pregnant female alpacas of 3 to 5 years of age maintained at 4100 m elevation in southern Peru were randomly distributed into 4 experimental groups. Groups 1 ( n = 8) and 3 ( n = 9) received an intravaginal device containing 0.78 mg of progesterone (Cue-Mate®, Bioniche Animal Health, Belleville, Ontario, Canada) plus an i.m. injection of 1 mg of estradiol benzoate on Day 0; the intravaginal device was removed on Day 7. Groups 2 ( n = 7) and 4 ( n = 10) received an i.m. injection of 3.1 mg of LH (Lutropin®, Bioniche Animal Health) on Day 0. Females received 700 IU of eCG (Pregnecol®, Bioniche Animal Health) i.m. on Day 7 (Groups 1 and 3) or Day 2 (Groups 2 and 4). In all groups, oocyte collection was done 2 days after the injection of eCG. Groups 1 and 2 were subjected to ventral laparotomy aspirating the oocytes from follicles >3 mm in diameter using a 10-mL hypodermic syringe containing 1 mL of aspiration media (Ringer's lactate solution plus 10% bovine serum) and connected to an 18 G × 1 inch aspiration needle. After collection, the follicular fluid was searched and the COC were graded. Groups 3 and 4 were subjected to ovum pick-up by transvaginal recovery using an ultrasound scanner (Parus 240®, Pie Medical, Maastricht, the Netherlands) equipped with a vaginal probe of 7.5 MHz (MEVA®, Pie Medical) and a 17G × 55 cm aspiration needle introduced through a needle guide. Follicles >3 mm in diameter were aspirated into 50-mL centrifuge tubes containing 5 mL of aspiration media with 75 IU mL–1 of heparin. The aspirated fluid was filtered and rinsed using an embryo filter (EmCon®, Immunosystems, Menomonie, WI), and COC were searched and graded under a microscope based on the intactness of the cumulus cell layers. Data were analyzed by ANOVA. There were no differences ( P > 0.05) between groups in the mean number of follicles aspirated per donor (11.0, 13.8, 9.4, and 9.1 for Groups 1 to 4 respectively), and in the mean number of COC recovered per donor (7.6, 7.0, 6.0, and 6.1 respectively for Groups 1 to 4). The proportions of good quality COC were significantly ( P < 0.01) different between surgical (81.0 and 79.5% for Groups 1 and 2) and transvaginal/ultrasound-guided (7.4% for Group 3) methods of collection; however, they were similar to the proportion in Group 4 (64.9%) retrievals. The results show that in the absence of an intravaginal device, a similar quantity and quality of alpaca oocytes can be collected when using a surgical approach or minimally invasive ultrasound-guided transvaginal follicular aspiration.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.721
Threshold uncertainty score0.290

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.233 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations2
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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