MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1989029067 · doi:10.1071/rdv20n1ab295

295 SUPEROVULATORY RESPONSE IN COWS FOLLOWING SYNCHRONIZATION OF FOLLICLE WAVE EMERGENCE WITH ESTRADIOL AT DIFFERENT STAGES OF THE ESTROUS CYCLE

2007· article· en· W1989029067 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
A. García-Guerra, G. A. Bó, J. P. V. Villarreal, G.M. Brogliatti

Bibliographic record

VenueReproduction Fertility and Development · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicReproductive Physiology in Livestock
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEstrous cycleFollicular phaseEstradiol benzoateTheriogenologyInternal medicineBiologyCloprostenolEstrus synchronizationFollicleBreedEndocrinologyBrown SwissAndrologyAnimal scienceReproductive technologyOvulationEmbryoMedicineEstrogenEmbryogenesisHormone

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ovarian asynchrony and variability in response to superstimulation remain the most limiting factors in any embryo transfer program (Armstrong D 1993 Theriogenology 39, 7–24). Ovarian response can be increased and less variable if superstimulatory treatment is started at the time of follicular wave emergence (Bö GA et al. 1995 Theriogenology 43, 31–40). A combination of progesterone (P4) and estradiol have been used to synchronize follicular wave for superstimulation. A retrospective analysis was done to compare the ovarian response, superovulatory response and embryo production of cows in Argentina that received progesterone and estradol prior to superstimulation at different stages of the estrous cycle. This research was carried out using different breed of donors (n = 584, 88% Angus) during the last 4 years in Buenos Aires province, Argentina. Heat detection was performed twice a day. At random stages of the estrous cycle, donors received an intravaginal progesterone device (DIB; Syntex, Buenos Aires, Argentina), 2 mg of estradiol benzoate and 50 mg of progesterone (Syntex, Buenos Aires, Argentina) IM on the same day. On day 4 after DIB insertion, superestimulatory treatment was initiated on a decreasing dose regimen of FSH (Pluset; Callier, Spain, or Folltropin, Bioniche Animal Health Inc., Belleville, Ontario, Canada) as IM injections every 12 h over 4 d. On day 6, DIBs were removed, and cows received two doses of 2 mL of cloprostenol 12 h apart. At heat detection, all donors received a dose of 2 mL of GnRH (Dalmarelin; Fatro Von Franken, Buenos Aires, Argentina) by IM injection and were inseminated 12 and 24 h later. Seven days later, embryo collection was performed and ovarian response was evaluated as number of CL + unovulated follicles by transrectal ultrasound using a 7.5-MHz transducer (Pie Medical, Maastricht, the Netherlands). Ova/embryos were evaluated and classified according to the IETS manual. Donors were assigned to receive DIB and estradiol during the following stages of the cycle: group 1: between days 4 and 7 post-estrus (dominant follicle period), group 2: between days 8 and 12 post-estrus (emergence of the second follicular wave), and group 3: between days 13 and 21 post-estrus (dominant follicle of the second wave). Kruskal-Wallis test was used to compare variables among groups, and results are shown in Table 1. Ovarian response as CL + unovulated follicles and number of ovulations were significantly different among groups (P < 0.05). However, there was no significant difference in the number of fertilized ova or transferable embryos. Nevertheless, numeric differences that show that group 2 (started between days 8 and 12 post-estrus) was always superior for all variables. In conclusion, data suggest that estradiol may be more effective in synchronizing follicle wave emergence for superstimulation during the mid-part of the estrous cycle. Table 1. Superovulatory response in cows in which follicle wave emergence was synchronized with estradiol at different stages of the estrous cycle (mean ± SD) Research supported by Centro Genetico Bovino Eolia S.A.

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 score0.328
Threshold uncertainty score0.180

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.205 · 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
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReproduction Fertility and DevelopmentSame topicReproductive Physiology in LivestockFrench-language works237,207