MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2012967845 · doi:10.1071/rdv23n1ab317

317 PRELIMINARY REPORT ON THE USE OF A SLOW-RELEASE FORMULATION FOR ADMINISTRATION OF FOLLICLE-STIMULATING HORMONE IN 3 ASSISTED REPRODUCTION APPLICATIONS IN GOATS

2010· article· en· W2012967845 on OpenAlexaffabout
Hernán Baldassarre, J.T. Pierson, Stéphane Poulin, L. Sneek, Dragan Rogan, Duncan K. Hockley

Bibliographic record

VenueReproduction Fertility and Development · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReproductive Biology and Fertility
Canadian institutionsBell (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOvulationEstrous cycleFollicular phaseMedicineArtificial inseminationInseminationGynecologyAndrologySemenEmbryo transferFollicle-stimulating hormoneAnimal scienceInternal medicineHormoneBiologyEmbryoSpermPregnancyLuteinizing hormone

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study was aimed at the development of FSH administration protocols using a slow-release formulation (SRF, Bioniche, Belleville, Ontario, Canada) for simplification of multiinjection protocols used for goat superovulation in multiple-ovulation embryo transfer (MOET) and laparoscopic ovum pickup (LOPU) programs. Moreover, FSH-SRF was also tested as a replacement for eCG in oestrus synchronization programs, as a potential solution for countries where eCG is not licensed and for animals that have become refractory to eCG after multiple treatments. In the MOET group, 20 goats were synchronized with CIDR (Pfizer, Montreal, Quebec, Canada) and superovulated, and embryos were collected by mid-ventral laparotomy 6 days after a single intrauterine insemination with fresh semen. Half of the donors (control) were treated with a standard superovulation regimen consisting of a total 160 mg of FSH (Folltropin, Bioniche) administered in 8 decreasing-dose injections at 12-h intervals, starting 48 h before CIDR removal. The other half (SRF group) received the same total amount of FSH in 2 injections administered 2/3 at –48 h and 1/3 at CIDR removal. In the LOPU group, 10 control goats were treated with a total 80 mg of FSH administered in 3 equal injections at 12-h intervals, starting –36 h from LOPU, whereas the SRF-FSH group received the total amount in a single injection at –36 h from LOPU. Finally, to evaluate the effectiveness of SRF-FSH in oestrus/ovulation synchronization, 20 goats were injected at CIDR removal with either 400 IU of eCG (Pregnecol, Bioniche) or 20 mg of FSH-SRF or 40 mg of FSH-SRF and evaluated by the presence of a morphologically sound corpus luteum (CL) by laparoscopy on day 6 from oestrus. No significant differences (ANOVA, P > 0.05) were obtained between the control and SRF groups in terms of average number of CL (9.1 v. 10.0), ova recovered (6.2 v. 7.7), and transferable embryos (5.4 v. 6.5) in the MOET part of the study. Similarly, no differences were observed in the average number of follicles for aspiration (17.8 v. 17.9), oocytes recovered (13.7 v. 14.0), and recovery rate (76.9 v. 78.2%) in goats subject to LOPU. In the oestrus synchronization group, all animals were observed in standing heat in the period from 36 to 60 h post-CIDR removal. The average number of CL did not differ among the 3 treatment groups (1.9 v. 2.0 v. 2.4). One case of no ovulation (10%) and one of premature luteolysis (10%) were found in the control group, whereas 100% of the goats in the FSH-SRF groups had normal CL present. These results indicate that FSH-SRF can significantly reduce the amount of labour associated with multiinjection hormonal regimens (MOET, LOPU) without loss in donor responses and can be used for oestrus synchronization as an alternative to eCG-based protocols. All these results were produced during the Canadian winter; further studies will be conducted in other seasons of the year to explore the effect of goat reproductive seasonality in the response to the FSH-SRF treatment strategies described.

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)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.475
Threshold uncertainty score0.451

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
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 head0.086
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.234 · 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

Citations1
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReproduction Fertility and DevelopmentSame topicReproductive Biology and FertilityFrench-language works237,207