Effects of repetition, interval between treatments and season on the results from laparoscopic ovum pick-up in goats
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study was conducted to evaluate the follicular response and oocyte yield following repeated gonadotrophin stimulation and laparoscopic aspiration in goats and to assess the effects of the time interval between procedures and season. A total of 98 adult goats were subjected to laparoscopic ovum pick-up (LOPU) five consecutive times in a transgenic production programme. Oestrus was synchronised by means of intravaginal sponges inserted for 10 days coupled with 125 microg cloprostenol 36 h before sponge removal and LOPU, and follicular development was stimulated with 80 mg follicle stimulating hormone and 300 IU equine chorionic gonadotrophin administered 36 h before LOPU. No difference was detected in the response for LOPUs 1, 2, 3 and 4. Although a small decrease in response was detected at LOPU 5 (P < 0.05), the numbers of follicles aspirated and oocytes recovered were not different from those at LOPU 1 and LOPUs 1 and 4, respectively. With respect to time interval between LOPU and season, all intervals and seasons produced acceptable responses, with no difference in follicles aspirated and oocytes recovered between intervals and seasons. These results indicate that LOPU may be repeated up to five times in goats at different intervals and in different seasons with little or no important change in overall response.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".