MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2049872391 · doi:10.1071/rdv24n1ab230

230 SUPEROVULATORY RESPONSE OF BEEF COWS WITH OR WITHOUT A CORPUS LUTEUM AT THE TIME OF INSERTION OF A PROGESTERONE RELEASING DEVICE

2011· article· en· W2049872391 on OpenAlexaffabout
A. Tríbulo, Juan Pablo Garzón, H. Tríbulo, R. Tríbulo, Dragan Rogan, R.J. Mapletoft, G. A. Bó

Bibliographic record

VenueReproduction Fertility and Development · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicReproductive Physiology in Livestock
Canadian institutionsUniversity of SaskatchewanProcter & Gamble (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCorpus luteumEmbryoAnimal scienceEmbryo transferEmbryo cultureMedicineBeef cattleDoseAndrologyBiologyInternal medicineEndocrinologyEmbryogenesisOvary

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Commercial embryo transfer programs require frequent superovulation of embryo donors. Although early reports suggested that donor cows require 60 to 90 days to recover from superovulation, recent information suggests that this interval could be reduced to 25 to 30 days. Because donor cows reovulate at variable intervals after embryo collection, some donors do not have an ultrasonically detectable corpus luteum (CL) when frequent superovulation programs are initiated. A retrospective study was performed to evaluate the influence of the presence of a CL at the time of initiating treatments on superovulatory response of beef donors that had been previously collected once and then were collected every 28 to 35 days 2 or 3 times. The data were from 190 collections performed in 48 Angus, 36 in 10 Brangus and 74 in 20 Bonsmara donors. On Day 0, all cows were ultrasonically examined for the presence of a CL (Falco 100 Vet, 8-MHz transducer, Pie Medical, the Netherlands) and were treated with 5 mg of oestradiol-17ß and 50 mg of progesterone IM and a progesterone-releasing intravaginal device (Cue-Mate, Bioniche Animal Health, Belleville, Ontario, Canada). On Day 4, donors were superstimulated with Folltropin-V (Bioniche Animal Health), in twice-daily injections over 4 days or diluted in 20 mg mL–1 hyaluronan and given by a single IM injection. Folltropin-V dosages used were 300 or 400 mg (Angus), 260 or 300 mg (Brangus), or 200 or 300 mg (Bonsmara). On Day 6, all cows received 2 doses of PGF2a 12 h apart and Cue-Mates were removed in the p.m. In the a.m. of Day 8, cows received 12.5 mg pLH (Lutropin-V; Bioniche Animal Health) and were inseminated 12 and 24 h later. Ova/embryos were collected nonsurgically on Day 15 and evaluated following IETS guidelines. For each breed, superovulatory response (i.e. mean number of CL) and embryo data were evaluated by ANOVA for mixed models, using CL, FSH dose and treatment as fixed variables and cow identification as a random variable. Forty-six (24.2%) Angus donors, 4 (11.1%) Brangus donors and 5 (6.8%) Bonsmara donors did not have a CL at the time of initiating FSH treatment. There was no significant effect of FSH dose or treatment protocol on superovulatory response and the presence or absence of a CL did not influenced embryo production (P > 0.31). Mean (± SEM) number of CL, ova/embryos and transferable embryos were 13.2 ± 0.5, 12.4 ± 0.7 and 6.1 ± 0.4 in Angus donors with a CL vs 13.0 ± 0.7, 11.5 ± 0.9 and 5.6 ± 0.7 for those without a CL (P > 0.37); 14.8 ± 1.2, 14.2 ± 1.6 and 8.4 ± 1.1 for Brangus donors with a CL vs 15.2 ± 3.1; 11.2 ± 3.3 and 5.7 ± 2.8 for those without a CL (P > 0.34); and 13.2 ± 0.8, 11.2 ± 1.0 and 7.4 ± 0.5 for Bonsmara donors with a CL vs 17.4 ± 3.7, 13.6 ± 6.5 and 9.2 ± 4.3 for those without a CL (P > 0.16). In summary, the presence or absence of a CL did not affect embryo production in donor cows superstimulated every 28 to 35 days using a progesterone-releasing device and FSH. Study was supported by Bioniche Animal Health, Belleville, Ontario, Canada.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
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 score0.580
Threshold uncertainty score0.181

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.182 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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