MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Concentrations of Prolactin, LH, Testosterone, TSH and Thyroxine in Normospermic Dogs of Different Breeds

2009· article· en· W2137729306 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
C. Urhausen, A. Seefeldt, F Eschricht, Adam J. Koch, H.-O. Hoppen, Martin Beyerbach, C Möhrke, S.J. Dieleman, AR Günzel‐Apel

Bibliographic record

VenueReproduction in Domestic Animals · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicNeuroendocrine regulation and behavior
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProlactinBreedEndocrinologyInternal medicineTestosterone (patch)Basal (medicine)HormonephotoperiodismBiologyMedicineAnimal science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Concentrations of prolactin (PRL), LH, testosterone (T), TSH and thyroxine (T(4)) were determined before and at 20, 120 and 180 min after a single iv injection of thyrotropin-releasing hormone (TRH) in eight Beagles, eight Fox Terriers, six Labrador Retrievers and five Great Danes that were normospermic. Mean basal PRL concentrations were lower in the Fox Terriers compared with the Great Danes (p < 0.05). Mean LH concentrations were higher in the Fox Terriers than in the Beagles, and T was lower in the Fox Terriers at some times but not others (p < 0.05). Thyroid Stimulating Hormone (TSH) concentrations did not differ among breeds, while mean basal T(4) values were lower in Fox Terriers compared with Labrador Retrievers and Great Danes (p < 0.05). Stimulation of T(4) secretion 120 and 180 min after iv TRH injection was most pronounced in the Beagles and less in the Fox Terriers (p < 0.05). The results of the present study indicate that potential breed differences in circulating concentrations of PRL, LH, T, TSH and T(4) in male dogs with apparently normal fertility can be encountered, but further studies are needed to determine whether the observed differences are typical features of these breeds, reflect subsets of dogs within breeds, or are in part because of possible uncontrolled parameters such as sample timing, ambient photoperiod, housing conditions or diet.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.322
Threshold uncertainty score0.478

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.307 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations15
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReproduction in Domestic AnimalsSame topicNeuroendocrine regulation and behaviorFrench-language works237,207