Superovulation and embryo quality with porcine follicle stimulation hormone (pFSH) in Katahdin hair sheep during breeding season
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Estrus synchronization of 21 ewes was carried out using intravaginal sponges (60 mg of medroxyprogesterone acetate, Sincrogest®-Sanfer, Mexico) for 14 days. 7 ewes were randomly assigned to one of the three treatments: T1, 80 mg; T2, 120 mg; T3, 140 mg of porcine follicle stimulating (pFSH) (Folltropin-p®-Bioniche, Canada) administered on day 12 after sponge insertion. The dose was divided in decreasing doses; second and third day representing 50 to 75% and 25 to 33% of the first day dose, respectively. At the beginning of superovulation treatment, each ewe received 5 mg of dinoprost tromethamine (1 ml of Lutalyse® Pfizer, Mexico). An effect of pFSH level was observed on the interval from sponge removal and the onset of estrus (REI) (P < 0.01), with a difference of 13.5 h between ewes from treatment 2 and 3. The number of follicles (F), number of collected embryos (CE) and transferable embryos (TE) (P < 0.05) was also different among treatments, with highest values observed in T3 (3.0 ± 0.6 for CE and 2.3 ± 0.5 for TE). Embryo recovery rate was in average 66.5%, (P > 0.05) of CL observed. Further investigation is guaranteed to evaluate the effect of pFSH doses on estrus synchronization for selected breeding seasons
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 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".