MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2065537839 · doi:10.1071/rdv24n1ab225

225 ADDITION OF EQUINE CHORIONIC GONADOTROPIN TO A TRADITIONAL FOLLICLE STIMULATING HORMONE PROTOCOL FOR SUPEROVULATION OF BOS TAURUS BEEF COWS

2011· article· en· W2065537839 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Richard L. Davis, A Arteaga, J.F. Hasler

Bibliographic record

VenueReproduction Fertility and Development · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicReproductive Physiology in Livestock
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEquine chorionic gonadotropinFollicle-stimulating hormoneCrossover studyInternal medicineCloprostenolEndocrinologyEmbryo transferFollicleCorpus luteumHuman chorionic gonadotropinAndrologyAnimal scienceMedicineBiologyHormonePregnancyLuteinizing hormoneOvulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study examined the superovulatory responses of Bos taurus beef cows maintained in a commercial embryo transfer facility. Donors were superovulated 1 to 3 times each with either a traditional 8 injection FSH protocol (controls, n = 126) or 6 injections of FSH with the seventh or eighth FSH treatments replaced by 2 injections of eCG (treatment, n = 134). During the 5-month study, 132 donors were alternatively assigned to a control or treatment group for a single superovulation and an additional 62 animals were superovulated 2 (n = 58) or 3 times (n = 4) in a crossover design. Although 14 beef breeds were represented in the study, 87% of the cows were Angus, Red Angus, Polled Hereford, or Charolais. All donors were synchronized on Day 0 with a CIDR, 5 mg of oestradiol-17ß and 100 mg of progesterone. Starting on Day 4 (p.m.), controls were injected twice daily for 4 days with descending doses of porcine FSH (Folltropin-V®, Bioniche Animal Health, Belleville, Ontario, Canada). Cows received 750 µg of cloprostenol (Estrumate®, Intervet Schering-Plough, Summit, NJ, USA) at the seventh FSH injection and the CIDR was removed at the eighth FSH injection. Based on previous experience with specific, individual animals, total FSH dose per donor ranged from 240 to 400 mg. However, 74% of treatments involved 380 mg for controls and 310 mg for treated donors that received eCG. In addition, donors that were superovulated more than once received the same FSH dose in the crossover, treatment-control design. In the treatment group, 200 IU of eCG (Pregnecol™ 6000, Bioniche Animal Health) was substituted for the seventh and eighth FSH injections. Inseminations were conducted on a timed AI basis, with one unit of semen 32 h and a second 48 h following CIDR removal. Results were analysed by ANOVA as shown in Table 1. Although more ova/embryos and unfertilized ova (UFO) were recovered in the control group, the control and treatment groups did not differ in the number of grade 1, 2, or 3 embryos or in the number of degenerate embryos. Previous superovulation studies in South America using eCG to replace the last 2 injections of FSH resulted in more total ova/embryos in Nelore cows but not heifers and in more embryos in Brangus and Sindhi cows. The mean embryo production for the control cows in this study was high and the addition of eCG in the protocol did not improve embryo production. Failure of eCG to increase the number of embryos for Bos taurus cows in this study compared with previous studies may be due to differences with Bos taurus versus Bos indicus breeds or differences in management factors between Canada and South America. The high response rate in the controls may also have contributed to the failure of any advantage of adding eCG to the treatment protocol. Table 1. Mean numbers (± SEM) of ova and embryos recovered from Bos taurus females superovulated with 2 different protocols

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0020.000

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 head0.143
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.144 · 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 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

Citations6
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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