MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1991875514 · doi:10.1071/rdv22n1ab416

416 DOSE TITRATION FOR SUPERSTIMULATION OF BRANGUS AND BONSMARA DONORS WITH Folltropin®-V BY A SINGLE INTRAMUSCULAR INJECTION

2009· article· en· W1991875514 on OpenAlexaffabout
Dragan Rogan, A. Tríbulo, H. Tríbulo, R. Tríbulo, D. Carballo Guerrero, Paula Tríbulo, R.J. Mapletoft, G. A. Bó

Bibliographic record

VenueReproduction Fertility and Development · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicReproductive Physiology in Livestock
Canadian institutionsUniversity of SaskatchewanProcter & Gamble (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnimal scienceMedicineCrossover studyIntramuscular injectionDoseInternal medicineBiologyPlacebo

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Two experiments were designed to evaluate the superovulatory response of Brangus and Bonsmara donor cows to different dosages of Folltropin®-V (Bioniche Animal Health Inc., Belleville, Ontario, Canada) given by a single i.m. injection or twice-daily i.m. injections. In Experiment 1, Brangus cows (n = 12) were superstimulated by 6 treatments (2 × 3 factorial) in a crossover design (i.e. all cows received the 6 treatments and all treatments were represented on each day). On Day 0, cows received 5 mg of estradiol-17ß plus 50 mg of progesterone and a Cue-Mate® (Bioniche Animal Health Inc.). On Day 4, cows were superstimulated with 300, 260, or 200 mg of NIH-FSH-P1 Folltropin®-V (Bioniche Animal Health Inc.) in twice-daily decreasing doses over 4 days or diluted in a slow release formulation (SRF; Bioniche Animal Health) and given in a single i.m. injection. The single injection was prepared by diluting the Folltropin®-V lyophilized powder in 1 mL of saline followed by mixing with 9 mL of the SRF in the syringe immediately before administration. In the am and pm of Day 6, all cows received PGF2, and Cue-Mates® were removed in the pm. Cows received 12.5 mg of porcine LH (Lutropin®-V; Bioniche Animal Health Inc.) in the am of Day 8 and were inseminated 12 and 24 h later. Ova/embryos were collected on Day 15 and data were analyzed by ANOVA. There was no effect of treatment (i.e. single v. twice-daily injections; P > 0.2) nor a treatment by dosage interaction (P < 0.6) on the mean (± SEM) number of total ova/embryos or transferable embryos (13.1 ± 1.9 and 7.5 ± 1.2 v. 15.5 ± 1.7 and 7.6 ± 1.0 for single v. twice-daily injections, respectively). The total number of ova/embryos did not differ among Folltropin®-V dosages (15.0 ± 2.3, 15.7 ± 2.0, and 12.1 ± 2.5 for 300, 260, and 200 mg, respectively; P > 0.4). However, the number of transferable embryos tended (P < 0.09) to be higher in donors receiving 260 mg (9.5 ± 1.6) than 200 mg (5.2 ± 0.8), with 300 mg (7.9 ± 1.5) intermediate. In Experiment 2, Bonsmara cows (n = 16) were superstimulated by 4 treatments (2 × 2 factorial) in a crossover design similarly to Experiment 1, except that 2 dosages of Folltropin®-V (200 and 300 mg) were evaluated. There were no significant effects of dosage of Folltropin®-V (P > 0.9), treatment (P > 0.3), or interaction (P < 0.4) on embryo production. The total number of ova/embryos and transferable embryos were 11.9 ± 2.0 and 7.2 ± 1.1 v. 11.1 ± 1.1 and 7.6 ± 0.7 for single and twice-daily injections, respectively, and 11.9 ± 1.9 and 7.6 ± 1.0 v. 11.1 ± 1.3 and 7.2 ± 0.8 for 300 and 200 mg of Folltropin®-V, respectively. Superstimulation of Brangus and Bonsmara cows with a single i.m. injection of Folltropin®-V diluted in a SRF resulted in comparable embryo production to twice-daily administration of Folltropin®-V over 4 days. While 260 mg seems to be the most appropriate dosage for Brangus donors, 200 mg seems to be adequate for Bonsmara donors.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.218
Teacher spread0.198 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations7
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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