Consequences of different patterns of feed intake during the estrous cycle in gilts on subsequent fertility.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The impact of different patterns of feed restriction between d 1 and 15 of the estrous cycle on subsequent reproductive performance of 23 trios of littermate gilts was tested. Some gilts were fed a high plane of nutrition (HH gilts) throughout the cycle, in contrast to HR gilts, which were restricted from d 8 to 15, and RH gilts, which were restricted from d 1 to 7. During feed restriction, weight gain in RH gilts (2.5 +/- .7 kg) was lower (P = .006) between d 1 and d 7 than in their HH and HR littermates (5.6 +/- .7 and 5.6 +/- .8 kg, respectively) and it was lower (P = .0001) in HR gilts (5.5 +/- .5 kg) between d 8 to d 15 than in their HH and RH counterparts (8.5 +/- .4 and 9.4 +/- .5 kg, respectively). There were no differences in backfat changes among groups. Embryonic survival in HR gilts at d 28 of gestation (68.3 +/- 4.8%) was lower (P < .05) than in HH and RH gilts (83.6 +/- 4.3 and 81.7 +/- 4.5%, respectively). Plasma progesterone concentrations in HR gilts were lower (P < .05) at 48 and 72 h after onset of standing estrus (.82 +/- .2 and 3.6 +/- .5 ng/mL, respectively) than in HH and RH gilts (1.44 +/- .2 and 1.24 +/- .2 ng/mL, 5.0 +/- .4 and 5.0 +/- .5 ng/mL, respectively at 48 and 72 h). No differences in ovulation rate were observed among treatments. Placental area was positively correlated to embryo size at d 28 (embryo size = .0003 x (area) + 18.35; r = .28, P = .03) but placental volume was negatively correlated to the number of embryos in utero (placental volume = -4.317 x (number) + 207.55, r = -.39, P = .002). These data demonstrate that the timing of feed restriction during follicular development has important consequences for subsequent embryo survival, possibly mediated by differences in progesterone concentrations in early pregnancy.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".