MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2006368398 · doi:10.4141/a01-025

In vitro embryo production using ovaries removed from culled cows

2001· article· en· W2006368398 on OpenAlexaffvenue
G. Giritharan, R. Rajamahendran

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Animal Science · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReproductive Biology and Fertility
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEstrous cycleEmbryoAndrologyOocyteIn vitro maturationBiologyOvaryFollicleHuman fertilizationIn vitro fertilisationEmbryo transferPregnancy rateAnimal sciencePregnancyEndocrinologyMedicineAnatomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective was to utilize in vitro maturation and fertilization to maximize embryo production from culled dairy cows. Ovaries were removed (via a colopotomy technique) from culled Holstein cows (n = 21) 2 d after standing estrus (T1), 2 d after treatment with 40 mg follicle stimulating hormone (FSH) given at standing estrus (T2), or at an unknown stage of the estrous cycle (T3).Treatment with FSH increased (P < 0.05) oocyte recovery rate (mean ± SEM, 14.6 ± 2.2, 25.4 ± 3.4, and 11.1 ± 2.6 oocytes ovary–1), for groups T1, T2 and T3, respectively, and the number of blastocysts obtained (1.6 ± 0.5, 4.4 ± 0.4 and 1.6 ± 0.6 blastocysts ovary–1). Culled dairy cows of high genetic merit are potential embryo donors, with an average of six to eight transferable embryos obtained from each FSH-treated cow. Key words: FSH treatment, oocyte recovery, IVM, IVF, culled cows

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)0.001
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.252 · 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

Citations3
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Animal ScienceSame topicReproductive Biology and FertilityFrench-language works237,207