MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Biochemical and Fatty Acids Composition of Water Buffalo (Bubalus Bubalis) Follicular Fluid

2014· article· en· W2091211156 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
J. Vencato, Tamara Badon, Silvia Bedin, Paola Cogo, Manuela Simonato, C. Stelletta

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Buffalo Science · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicReproductive Physiology in Livestock
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBubalusWater buffaloComposition (language)BiologyChemistryVeterinary medicineMedicineEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aim of this study was to characterize the biochemical and fatty acids composition of follicular fluid collected from follicles of different sizes and in different phases of ovarian cycle in water buffalo farmed in Italy. Ovaries were collected at slaughterhouse during the breeding season; follicular fluid was aspirated dividing samples in small and large follicles (< 6 mm and > 6 mm respectively) and in luteal and follicular phase. Biochemical analysis and gas-chromatography were performed. Biochemical and fatty acids composition were greatly influenced by both follicular dimension and phase of ovarian cycle. Biochemical composition and its variations were in agreement with previously study conducted in buffalo and other species. This is the first report of the fatty acids composition of buffalo follicular fluid. Twenty-two fatty acids were identified in follicular fluid; nine were saturated fatty acids, six monounsatured fatty acids and seven polyunsatured fatty acids. The most dominant fatty acids were linoleic acid, oleic acid, palmitic acid, stearic acid and arachidonic acid. All the identified fatty acids concentrations vary at least because of follicle dimension or phase, with the exception of γ-linoleic acid and arachidonic acid which concentrations remain stable in all classes.

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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.218 · 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

Citations4
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Buffalo ScienceSame topicReproductive Physiology in LivestockFrench-language works237,207