Reproductive performance and uterine prostaglandin secretion in gilts conditioned with dead semen and receiving dietary supplements of folic acid
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The effects of dietary supplements of folic acid at 0 (F−) or 15 ppm (F+) and of conditioning the uterus (C+) or not (C−) with an intrauterine infusion of dead semen on embryonic survival and prostaglandin E2 (PGE2) concentrations in the allantoic fluid on day 30 of gestation were studied. Sixty-four F1 crossbred gilts (Yorkshire × Landrace) were used in a 2 × 2 factorial design. The initiation of folate supplementation and the intrauterine infusion of dead semen were done at the estrus preceding the fertile mating. Folate status in serum was lower in F+ gilts than in F− gilts during the estrus cycle (folic acid × period interaction, P ≤ 0.007). Conditioning increased ovulation rate in F− gilts while it tended to decrease it in F+ gilts (interaction folic acid × conditioning, P ≤ 0.03). A similar interaction (P ≤ 0.02) was observed on the number of presumably live embryos at 30 d of gestation. Mean PGE2 concentration in the allantoic fluid was not affected by treatments (P ≥ 0.44), but the frequency of sows having elevated allantoic PGE2 (> 4 ng mL−1) tended to be higher (P ≤ 0.06) in F+ sows. Overall values of PGE2 were correlated with total litter weight (R2 = 0.54). In conclusion, there was no synergism between folic acid supplements and conditioning of the uterus with dead semen on the reproductive performance or on the secretion of allantoic PGE2 at 30 d of gestation. The secretion of allantoic PGE2 appears as an important factor involved in the control of litter size and weight. Key words: Folic acid, artificial insemination, semen, gilts, conditioning, embryo mortality
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".