MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1989377155 · doi:10.1262/jrd.48.383

Changes in Circulating Relaxin Levels during Pregnancy and Early Lactation in Japanese Monkeys (Macaca fuscata fuscata).

2002· article· en· W1989377155 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Keiko Shimizu, Wanzhu Jin, Hisashi Kishi, Junko Noguchi, Gen Watanabe, Kazuyoshi Taya

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Reproduction and Development · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPregnancy-related medical research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersPrimate Research Institute, Kyoto UniversityYork UniversityColorado State University
KeywordsRelaxinInternal medicineEndocrinologyRadioimmunoassayLactationPregnancyCorpus luteumPlacentaBiologyMedicineHormoneFetus

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Changes in relaxin concentrations in plasma throughout pregnancy and early lactation up to one month after parturition were characterized in 10 Japanese monkeys by a heterologous radioimmunoassay (RIA) based on the porcine RIA. Plasma levels of LH/monkey chorionic gonadotropin (mCG), estradiol-17β, progesterone and immunoreactive (ir-) inhibin were also monitored for the entire period. Relaxin levels in the plasma were low before conception. An accelerated rise in plasma relaxin levels was found during pregnancy. The first increase was noted during early pregnancy, with a peak (267.5 ± 50.5 pg/ml) at Day 31 ± 2.4 of pregnancy (Day 0= day of LH surge). The second increase was noted just before term with a peak (235.6 ± 37.5 pg/ml). After parturition, relaxin levels in the plasma abruptly declined but were maintained at approximately 100 ng/ml during early lactation. The first rise in plasma relaxin during pregnancy was in parallel with rises of mCG and progesterone, and the second rises was well correlated with those of plasma estradiol-17β ,progesterone and ir-inhibin. These results suggest that the major source of relaxin is corpus luteum and placenta during pregnancy in Japanese monkeys.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.791
Threshold uncertainty score0.431

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.238 · 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

Citations6
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Reproduction and DevelopmentSame topicPregnancy-related medical researchFrench-language works237,207