MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2062872703 · doi:10.1071/rdv19n1ab18

18 THE EFFECTS OF CIDR AND eCG TREATMENTS IN A GnRH-BASED PROTOCOL FOR TIMED AI OR EMBRYO TRANSFER ON PREGNANCY RATES IN LACTATING BEEF COWS

2006· article· en· W2062872703 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
J. A. Small, M.G. Colazo, John P. Kastelic, D. R. Ward, O. Dochi, R.J. Mapletoft

Bibliographic record

VenueReproduction Fertility and Development · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicReproductive Physiology in Livestock
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEquine chorionic gonadotropinPregnancyAnimal scienceConcomitantMedicineBreedEmbryo transferEstrous cyclePregnancy rateGynecologyInternal medicineEndocrinologyBiologyOvulationHormone

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Two experiments were conducted to determine the effects of the addition of a progestin, equine chorionic gonadotropin (eCG), or both, in a GnRH-based protocol for timed AI (TAI) or timed embryo transfer (TET). In both experiments, Angus, Gelbvieh, and Simmental cross-bred cows were randomized by breed and postpartum interval [50 ± 10 days (mean ± SD); range, 27 to 89] into 4 groups in a 2 × 2 factorial design. All injections were given IM. In Experiment 1, 288 cows (89.6% cycling) were given 25 mg dinoprost (PGF; Lutalyse®; Pfizer Animal Health, Montreal, Quebec, Canada) on Day –11; on Day 0, they were given 100 µg GnRH (Cystorelin®; Merial Canada, Pointe-Claire, Quebec, Canada), with or without concomitant insertion of a CIDR (1.9 g progesterone; Pfizer Animal Health, Montreal, Quebec, Canada). On Day 7, CIDR inserts were removed and cows were given PGF, with or without concomitant injection of 400 IU of eCG (Pregnecol®; Bioniche Animal Health, Belleville, Ontario, Canada). On Day 9 (54-56 h after PGF), TAI was done, with concomitant injection of 100 µg GnRH. Ultrasonographic examination of 147 cows on Day 7 revealed that 62.4% had ovulated in response to the first GnRH. Pregnancy rates (ultrasonographic examination) on Day 38 did not differ between cows with or without a CIDR (52.9 and 51.4%, rspectively; P = 0.64), with or without eCG treatment (53.5 and 50.7%, respectively; P = 0.28), in cycling vs. anestrous cows (51.6 vs 56.7%, respectively; P = 0.76), and in cows that had ovulated (58.1%) or did not ovulate (50.0%) after the first GnRH treatment ( P = 0.58). In Experiment 2, 151 cows were given 500 µg cloprostenol (PGF; Estrumate®; Schering–Plough Animal Health, Pointe-Claire, Quebec, Canada) on Day –12, 100 µg GnRH on Day 0, with or without concomitant insertion of a CIDR. On Day 3, half of the cows were given 400 IU eCG. On Day 7, CIDRs were removed and cows were given PGF; on Day 9 (54–56 h after PGF), all cows were given 100 µg GnRH. On Day 15, ultrasonography was done to select suitable recipients for transfer of frozen–thawed embryos on Day 16 (part of another experiment, balanced across synchronization groups). Recipient selection rates did not differ whether cows received or did not receive a CIDR (93.4% vs 85.5%, respectively; P = 0.27) or eCG (91.0 vs 87.8%, respectively; P = 0.67). In addition, pregnancy rates on Day 43 did not differ whether cows received or did not receive a CIDR (32.3 vs 32.4%, respectively; P = 0.52) or eCG (35.2 and 29.2%, respectively; P = 0.21). In summary, the addition of a CIDR or eCG to a GnRH-based synchronization protocol initiated after PGF presynchronization in lactating beef cattle yielded no improvement in pregnancy rates following TAI, or recipient selection and pregnancy rates following TET.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.256 · 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 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

Citations6
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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