MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2010992135 · doi:10.4322/rbcv.2014.339

Effect of two temperatures on in vitro nuclear maturation of bitch oocytes: relation to time culture intervals

2004· article· pt· W2010992135 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Berenice de Ávila Rodrigues, José Luiz Rodrigues

Bibliographic record

VenueRevista Brasileira de Ciência Veterinária · 2004
Typearticle
Languagept
FieldMedicine
TopicReproductive Biology and Fertility
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAndrologyIn vitroRelation (database)BiologyMedicineComputer scienceGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the present study, two commonly incubation temperatures used on in vitro oocyte maturation in canine species (Canis familiaris) were analysed with the aim to verify the rate of nuclear maturation of bitch oocytes after three culture intervals (48, 72 and 96 h). The culture medium was TCM 199, supplemented with 25mM Hepes/l (v/v), with 10% heat inactivated estrous cow serum (ECS), 50mg/mL gentamicin, 2.2mg/mL sodium bicarbonate and 22mg/mL pyruvic acid, 1.0mg/mL oestradiol (E 8875 Sigma), 0.5mg/mL FSH (Folltropin-V, Vetrepharm Inc. Ont, Canada) and 0.03IU/mL hCG (Profasi HP, Serono, Aubonne, Switzerland). Oocytes were recovered from ovaries of bitches at random estrous cycle stages by routine ovariohysterectomy (n=14) or by therapeutical ovariohysterectomy (n=8) at the veterinary hospital of the Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS), Brazil. There was no statistical difference in the rate of meiosis of oocytes matured at 37 o C or at 39 o C at any time point. However, the proportion of oocytes that reached the metaphase II (MII) stage at 37 o C after 72 h of in vitro culture (16/123; 13%), tended to be higher (P=0.064), when compared to that matured at the 39 o C (6/148; 4,1%). The results demonstrate that temperatures of 37 o C and 39 o C are equally effective for the in vitro culture of bitch oocytes. Keywords: canine/ oocyte/ in vitro

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.724
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.295 · 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.

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

Citations2
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevista Brasileira de Ciência VeterináriaSame topicReproductive Biology and FertilityFrench-language works237,207