MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1972076833 · doi:10.1071/rdv22n1ab420

420 SUPERSTIMULATION OF ANGUS DONORS WITH A SINGLE INTRAMUSCULAR INJECTION OF FOLLTROPIN®-V

2009· article· en· W1972076833 on OpenAlexaffabout
A. Tríbulo, H. Tríbulo, R. Tríbulo, D. Carballo Guerrero, Paula Tríbulo, Dragan Rogan, R.J. Mapletoft, G. A. Bó

Bibliographic record

VenueReproduction Fertility and Development · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReproductive Biology and Fertility
Canadian institutionsUniversity of SaskatchewanProcter & Gamble (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntramuscular injectionAnimal scienceMedicineSalineAndrologyAnesthesiaBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Two experiments were designed to determine the superovulatory response of Angus donors treated with a single injection of Folltropin®-V diluted in a slow release formulation (SRF; Bioniche Animal Health Inc., Belleville, Ontario, Canada). Experiment 1 was designed to compare superovulatory response in Angus donor cows (n = 29 per group) treated with a single i.m. injection of Folltropin®-V diluted in SRF with cows treated using the traditional twice-daily i.m. injection treatment schedule. On Day 0, all cows received 5 mg of estradiol-17ß plus 50 mg of progesterone and a Cue-Mate® (Bioniche Animal Health). On Day 4, cows were superstimulated with 400 mg of NIH-FSH-P1 Folltropin®-V in twice-daily decreasing doses over 4 days or in a single i.m. injection in the neck. The single injection was prepared by diluting the Folltropin®-V lyophilized powder in 1 mL of saline for injection and mixed with 9 mL of the SRF in the syringe immediately before administration. In the am and pm of Day 6, all cows received PGF2 and Cue-Mates® were removed in the pm. In the am of Day 8, cows received 12.5 mg of porcine LH (Lutropin®-V; Bioniche Animal Health) and were inseminated 12 and 24 h later. Ova/embryos were collected nonsurgically on Day 15 and evaluated following IETS recommendations. Means were compared between groups by t-test Mean (±SEM) number of ova/embryos and transferable embryos were 13.7 ± 2.1 and 7.1 ± 1.3 v. 12.3 ± 1.5 and 5.3 ± 0.8 for donors treated with the single v. twice-daily injections, respectively (P > 0.4). Experiment 2 was designed to confirm the results of Experiment 1 and to compare the effect of different dosages of Folltropin®-V on embryo production in Angus cows. Cows (n = 23) were superstimulated by 6 treatment protocols (2 × 3 factorial) in a crossover design (i.e. all cows received the 6 treatments and all treatments were represented on each collection day). Cows received the same treatments as cows in Experiment 1 except that the dosages of Folltropin®-V used were 200, 300, or 400 mg. Statistical analysis (ANOVA) revealed a significant effect of dosage of Folltropin®-V on embryo production, but there was no effect of treatment (i.e. single v. twice-daily injections; P > 0.2), nor was there a treatment by dosage interaction (P > 0.7). Mean (± SEM) number of ova/embryos and transferable embryos were 10.3 ± 0.9 and 5.4 ± 0.6 v. 11.3 ± 0.6 and 5.6 ± 0.5 for donors treated with the single or twice-daily injections, respectively (P > 0.2). Furthermore, the mean number of ova/embryos and transferable embryos were higher in cows treated with 400 mg (13.9 ± 1.1 and 6.5 ± 0.7) and 300 mg (12.0 ± 1.0 and 6.1 ± 0.7) of Folltropin®-V than those treated with 200 mg (6.6 ± 0.7 and 4.0 ± 0.5). In summary, superstimulation of Angus donor cows with a single i.m. injection of Folltropin®-V diluted in an SRF resulted in comparable embryo production to the traditional twice-daily i.m. administration of Folltropin®-V over 4 days. Although response did not differ between 300 and 400 mg, results suggest that 300 mg of Folltropin®-V given i.m. by a single or twice-daily injections is the most appropriate dose for Angus donor cows.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.228 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations14
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReproduction Fertility and DevelopmentSame topicReproductive Biology and FertilityFrench-language works237,207