Individual fertility differences in the frozen‐thawed spermatozoa among semen donors in the Labrador Retriever
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: We aimed to validate and determine the possible application of transcervical insemination of frozen semen for improved breeding in guide dogs for the blind in Japan. Methods: From February 2004 to March 2007, a total of 53 Labrador Retriever bitches, used for the breeding of guide dogs for the blind, were transcervically inseminated with frozen-thawed semen from 13 males by means of a cystoscope. Results: The overall whelping and pregnancy rate with the frozen semen was 42%. Pregnancy rates ranged widely from 0 to 100% depending on the semen donor male. Of 13 males, 6 males exhibited severely poor fertility (less than 20% pregnancy rate) and 3 males exhibited high fertility (over 70% pregnancy rate) on artificial insemination. However, the spermatozoa motility after thawing was not significantly different among these dogs. In addition, heterospermic insemination revealed the optimal timing for transcervical insemination with frozen-thawed semen to be by day 6 after the LH surge. Conclusions: Although transcervical insemination of frozen-thawed semen is effective for breeding of guide dogs for the blind, some modification of freeze-thawing procedures might be required to overcome individual fertility differences in the frozen-thawed spermatozoa among semen donor dogs,. In addition, the motility of spermatozoa after thawing might not be an appropriate indicator of the relative fertility of frozen-thawed spermatozoa in dogs.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".