MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2134444361 · doi:10.3168/jds.2010-3428

Definitions and diagnosis of postpartum endometritis in dairy cows

2010· article· en· W2134444361 on OpenAlexaff
J. Dubuc, T.F. Duffield, K.E. Leslie, J.S. Walton, S.J. LeBlanc

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Dairy Science · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicReproductive Physiology in Livestock
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersWashington State UniversityPfizer
KeywordsEndometritisMedicineVaginal dischargeCytologyGynecologyObstetricsPregnancyBiologyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objectives of this observational study were to determine and compare diagnostic criteria for postpartum endometritis in dairy cows. Data generated from 1,044 Holstein cows (6 herds) enrolled in a randomized clinical trial were used. Cows were examined for endometritis at 35±3 d (exam 1) and 56±3 d (exam 2) after parturition, using endometrial cytology (cytobrush technique), vaginal discharge scoring (Metricheck device; Simcrotech, Hamilton, New Zealand), and cervical diameter measurement (transrectal palpation). Reproductive data were recorded until 200 d after parturition. Diagnostic criteria for cytological and clinical endometritis were determined based on detrimental effect on subsequent reproductive performance, using logistic regression and Cox proportional hazard models accounting for the effect of herd clustering. Comparison of diagnostic criteria was performed using endometrial cytology as reference test or by quantifying the agreement between diagnostic approaches. At exam 1, diagnostic criteria were ≥6% polymorphonuclear cells and mucopurulent or worse (purulent or foul) vaginal discharge for cytological and clinical endometritis, respectively. At exam 2, diagnostic criteria were ≥4% polymorphonuclear cells and mucopurulent or worse vaginal discharge for cytological and clinical endometritis, respectively. Cows were classified as having cytological endometritis only, clinical endometritis only, or both cytological and clinical endometritis. Prevalence at exam 1 was 13.5, 9.4, and 5.8% for cytological endometritis only, clinical endometritis only, and both cytological and clinical endometritis, respectively. The detrimental effects of cytological and clinical endometritis on reproductive performance were additive. Among cows with clinical endometritis, only 38 and 36% had cytological endometritis at exam 1 and exam 2, respectively. Combination of diagnostic criteria improved neither the accuracy for predicting cytological endometritis nor the agreement between cytological and clinical endometritis. Overall, these results suggested that cytological and clinical endometritis may represent different manifestations of reproductive tract disease. They also suggested that use of the terminology clinical endometritis may not be accurate and that purulent vaginal discharge may be more descriptive.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.021
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.046

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.224 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations323
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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