MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1982687175 · doi:10.1071/rdv22n1ab263

263 IN VITRO FERTILIZATION AND EMBRYO DEVELOPMENT OF CUMULUS-OOCYTE COMPLEXES COLLECTED BY ULTRASOUND-GUIDED FOLLICULAR ASPIRATION IN LLAMAS TREATED WITH GONADOTROPIN

2009· article· en· W1982687175 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Marco Berland, A. von Baer, Vı́ctor H. Parraguez, Patricio Morales, Gregory P. Adams, M. E. Silva, J. Ruiz, Marcelo Ratto

Bibliographic record

VenueReproduction Fertility and Development · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReproductive Biology and Fertility
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFollicular phaseFollicleIn vitro fertilisationAndrologyReproductive technologyGonadotropinOvarian follicleHuman fertilizationOocyteMedicineFolliculogenesisGynecologyBiologyInternal medicineEmbryoAnatomyEmbryogenesis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We have previously documented that both FSH and eCG are equally effective in inducing ovarian superstimulation in llamas, resulting in the recovery of a high number of expanded COC suitable for in vitro fertilization (Ratto et al. 2005 Theriogenology 63, 2445-2457). The objective of the study was to evaluate the ovarian response, morphology, and competence of COC collected by ultrasound-guided follicular aspiration in llamas treated with FSH or eCG. Llamas were assigned randomly into 2 groups (n = 16 per group) and treated for 48 h after follicle ablation with (1)25 mg of FSH (Folltropin, Bioniche Animal Health Canada Inc., Belleville, Canada) i.m. twice daily for 4 d; or (2) 1000IU of eCG (Novormon, Bioniche Animal Health Canada) as a single i.m. dose. The starting of gonadotropin treatment was considered Day 0. Both groups were given an i.m. dose of 5 mg of Armour Standard LH (Lutropin, Bioniche Animal Health Canada) on Day 6, and COC were collected by transvaginal ultrasound follicle aspiration of all follicles =7 mm on Day 7. The ovarian response was assessed by transrectal ultrasonography using a 7.5-MHz linear-array transducer (Aloka SSD-500, Clinics, Santiago, Chile) immediately before oocyte collection at 24 to 26 h after LH treatment in both groups. The COC were classified as expanded, compact, denuded, or degenerated. Expanded COC collected from FSH- (n = 147) and eCG-treated llamas (n = 141) were fertilized in vitro using epididymal sperm as previously described (Ratto et al. 2006 Anim. Reprod. Sci. 97, 246-257). Gametes were co-incubated at 38.5°C in air with 5% CO2 and high humidity for 18 h. After in vitro fertilization, presumptive zygotes were co-culture in SOF medium supplemented with 0.6% of BSA with llama granulosa cells at 39°C, 5% CO2, 5% O2, and 90% N2 for 7 days. Embryo development was evaluated on Days 2, 5, and 7 of in vitro culture (Day 0 = IVF). Data were analyzed by Student’s t-test or Fisher’s exact test and presented as mean ± SEM. The FSH and eCG treatment groups did not differ with respect to the number of follicles =7 mm at the time of COC collection (16.0 ± 2.7 v. 14.0 ± 1.9; P = 0.5), the number of COC collected (11.5 ± 1.9 v. 9.7 ± 1.2; P = 0.4), or the collection rate per follicle aspirated (77.0 v. 71.5%; P = 0.2). No difference was detected between FSH and eCG-treated llamas in the number of expanded COCs (9.8 ± 1.4 v. 9.4 ± 1.2; P = 0.8). The percentage of presumptive zygotes to develop into 2 to 8 cells on Day 2 (65.3 v. 63.1), morulas on Day 5 (46.2 v. 42.5), and blastocyst stage on Day 7 (23.1 v. 20.5) did not differ (P > 0.05) between FSH and eCG-treated llamas, respectively. In conclusion, FSH and eCG treatments were equally effective for ovarian superstimulation and oocyte collection. The recovery of a high number of expanded COC can be used directly for in vitro fertilization and their competence is not affected by gonadotropin treatment. The study was supported by Convenio Desempeño en Investigacion (2007-DGI-CDA-04), Universidad Catolica de Temuco.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.239 · 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 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

Citations5
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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