MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1973713397 · doi:10.1071/rdv22n1ab418

418 EFFECT OF SUPEROVULATION INITIATED AT FOLLICULAR WAVE EMERGENCE IN SANTA INÊS EWES

2009· article· en· W1973713397 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
B. D. M. Silva, T. A. S. N. Silva, Luciana Dalcin, Carolina Madeira Lucci, Jairo Pereira Neves

Bibliographic record

VenueReproduction Fertility and Development · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReproductive Biology and Fertility
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTheriogenologyEstrus synchronizationAnimal scienceFollicular phaseFollicleBiologyAndrologySpermatogenesisMedicineFolliculogenesisEmbryoOvulationInternal medicineCryopreservationHormone

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Superovulation in ewes has been a source of many studies aimed at obtaining high superovulatory response and number of viable embryos recovered. In a protocol called Day 0, superovulatory treatment was initiated at the time of wave emergence in the absence of a dominant follicle (Menchaca A et al. 2002 Theriogenology 58, 1713-1721). The aim of this study was to compare ovarian response and number of embryos recovered after treatment between ewes treated with a Day 0 protocol and those treated with a traditional protocol. Santa InÊs ewes (n= 18) between 2 and 5 years old were randomly distributed into 2 superovulation treatment groups: traditional protocol and Day 0 protocol. Each treatment was repeated twice in a crossover model. The traditional protocol consisted of the intravaginal insertion of a sponge containing 60 mg of medroxiprogesterone acetate (MAP; Progespon®, Tecnopec, São Paulo, Brazil) for 14 days, which was replaced on Day 7, followed by 150 µg of cloprostenol (Prolise®, Tecnopec) i.m. On Day 12, FSH (Folltropin®-V, Bioniche, Belleville, Ontario, Canada) treatment was initiated using a total dose of 200 mg, given in twice-daily i.m. injections that decreased in dose over 4 days. A dose of 200 IU of eCG (Novormon®, Syntex, Buenos Aires, Argentina) i.m. was given at the time of sponge withdrawal. The AI was done by laparoscopy at 48 and 55 h after sponge withdrawal using fresh semen. The Day 0 protocol consisted of a previous 9-day synchronization treatment with a sponge containing 60 mg of MAP, followed by 150 µ of cloprostenol i.m. and 200 IU of eCG i.m. given on Day 7. A dose of 0.05 mg of GnRH (lecirelin; Gestran Plus®, Tecnopec) i.m. was given 16 h after sponge withdrawal. In a preliminary study, 38 ewes ovulated 42 ± 52 h after sponge withdrawal. Therefore, 48 h after sponge removal was considered as Day 0 and FSH treatment was initiated at that time, with a total dose of 200 mg of Folltropin®-V, given in 6 twice-daily decreasing doses. Two doses of cloprostenol (150 µg) were given i.m. concurrent with the fifth and sixth FSH treatments. Gonadotropin-releasing hormone (0.05 mg of lecirelin i.m.) was given 12 h after the last FSH treatment. Artificial insemination with fresh semen was done by laparoscopy 16 and 26 h after GnRH treatment. Five days after AI, embryos were recovered surgically. Results were evaluated by the parametric t-test. The number of corpora lutea and ova/embryos recovered did not differ (P > 0.05) between the traditional (9.8 ± 5.3; 4.5 ± 4.6) and Day 0 (10.0 ± 6.0; 3.5 ± 4.3) protocols. Similarly, no difference in the number of viable embryos was observed between treatments (1.6 ± 2.0 and 1.7 ± 2.4 for the traditional and Day 0 treatments, respectively). Within viable embryos, the traditional protocol (0.4 ± 1.0) resulted in ahigher (P < 0.05) number of morulae than that of the Day 0 protocol (0.1 ± 0.3). The ewes that had no superovulatory response did not differ (P > 0.05) between the traditional (11.11%) and Day 0 (5.56%) protocols. In summary, there was no difference in the parameters evaluated between both protocols. Financial support: FAPDF, CNPq, Tecnopec.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.188
Threshold uncertainty score0.548

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.253 · 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

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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