Bibliographic record
Abstract
The study was designed to quantitatively characterize the histomorphological attributes of dominant and subordinate follicles in relation to follicular wave dynamics. Heifers (n = 27) were examined daily using ultrasonography to record the growth of individual follicles from 2 days before ovulation until the day of ovariectomy to obtain growing (n = 7), early static (n = 6), late static (n = 6) and regressing (n = 5) phase anovulatory dominant follicles of Wave 1, as well as preovulatory (n = 6) and subordinate (n = 42) follicles. The wall thickness of Wave 1 dominant follicles decreased dramatically (P < 0.01) during the late-static (60.2 +/- 4. 3 microm) and regressing (41.8 +/- 4.3 microm) phases compared to earlier phases. Cells of the granulosa layer of the dominant follicle of Wave 1 became loose during the late-static phase, with an increase (P < 0.001) in number of degenerating cells. Dominant follicles of Wave 1 were lined by fibroblast-like flattened cells during the regressing phase. One day after wave emergence (i.e., before selection), the three largest follicles of the wave were histomorphologically indistinguishable. The wall of the preovulatory follicle close to the medulla of the ovary was thicker (P < 0.01) than the wall facing the ovarian surface. The wall of subordinate follicles was thinner (P < 0.01) and had a lower mitotic index (P < 0.01) than that of their dominant counterparts 3 days and 6 days after wave emergence. In summary, follicular status, ascribed by ultrasonography, was associated with quantitatively distinct histomorphological characteristics. Morphometric changes in the dominant follicle during immature, mature, and post-mature phases were similar to, but occurred later than, those of subordinate follicle. The dominant follicles of Wave 1 entered histological atresia at the time of emergence of Wave 2.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".