MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1985048719 · doi:10.1071/rdv23n1ab162

162 OVARIAN ULTRASOUND BIOMICROSCOPY IN RABBITS

2010· article· en· W1985048719 on OpenAlexaffabout
M. P. Cervantes, Jaswant Singh, J. M. Palomino, D. Li, Gregory P. Adams

Bibliographic record

VenueReproduction Fertility and Development · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicRabbits: Nutrition, Reproduction, Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOvaryOvulationUltrasound biomicroscopyUltrasoundHistologyMasson's trichrome stainUltrasonographyMedicineBiologyAnatomyAndrologyPathologySurgeryRadiologyInternal medicineFibrosisHormone

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Invasive methods (e.g. histology) limit serial assessment of ovarian structures in rabbits and impede progress in our understanding of factors responsible for inducing ovulation. Serial transrectal or transvaginal ultrasonography of ovarian structures has revolutionized our understanding of reproductive patterns in domestic animals, but the approach is limited in smaller species by the small physical size of the animal and the ovary. The advent of high-resolution ultrasound biomicroscopy (UBM), however, has permitted recent characterisation of ovarian dynamics in species as small as mice. As part of a larger study on factors influencing ovulation in rabbits, the objective of the present study was to validate UBM as a method of assessing ovarian structures in rabbits by comparing ultrasound image attributes with histological attributes. Female New Zealand White rabbits (n = 4; 5 to 5.5 months of age) were given ovulation-inducing treatments and examined daily by conventional transabdominal ultrasonography with a 12-MHz linear-array probe (MyLabTM5). Rabbits were killed with sodium pentobarbital 8 days after treatment. Ovarian UBM was performed ex situ in a water bath. A 25-MHz oscillating sector-array transducer (Visualsonics) was moved mechanically at a constant speed along the long axis of each ovary, and images were recorded (300 frames per 10-s cine-loop). After UBM, ovaries (n = 8) were fixed in 10% formaldehyde, embedded in paraffin, serial-sectioned at 10-µm thickness, and stained with Masson’s trichrome. Digital photomicrographs were taken of every third section of each ovary. For each ovary, follicles =0.6 mm and corpora lutea (CL) were counted and measured by scrolling through the UBM cine-loops and the serial micrographs. Ovarian follicles =1.5 mm were readily detected by conventional ultrasonography, and such follicles were present in the ovaries of all rabbits on the day of treatment, but CL structures were not clearly discernable during the 8 days after treatment. In vivo transabdominal UBM failed to yield satisfactory images of the ovaries probably because of high acoustic impedance of the body wall. The number (mean ± SEM) of CL detected by UBM ex situ in each pair of ovaries was highly correlated (r = 0.99; P < 0.05) with the number detected by histology (8.5 ± 2.9 v. 8.8 ± 3.0). The diameter of CL was also highly correlated (2.1 ± 0.7 v. 1.8 ± 0.6 mm; r = 0.99; P < 0.05). Similarly, a high correlation was detected between UBM and histology in the number of follicles =0.6 mm (17.3 ± 2.3 v. 19.0 ± 1.6; r = 0.96 P < 0.05), and follicle diameter (1.1 ± 0.05 v. 1.1 ± 0.03 mm; r = 0.96; P < 0.05). Interestingly, UBM of each ovary required on average 2 h compared with 30 h for histology. The results validate the accuracy of UBM for assessing rabbit ovaries ex situ, but identify limitations of present ultrasound approaches for examining rabbit ovaries in situ. Supported by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada. The authors thank D. Nesbitt for assistance with histological procedures.

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 score0.557
Threshold uncertainty score0.356

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.225 · 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
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReproduction Fertility and DevelopmentSame topicRabbits: Nutrition, Reproduction, HealthFrench-language works237,207