Hyaluronic acid in the female reproductive tract of the pig
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Uterine and oviductal samples were collected from twenty two primiparous sows on their second estrus following weaning. Based on the timing of ovulation determined by real-time ultrasound, samples were collected from a minimum of three sows whose temporal reproductive status corresponded to the germinal vesicle (GV) and metaphase two (MII) stages of oocyte maturation, and the 2-cell, 4-cell, early morula (8- to 16-cell), morula and blastocyst stages of embryonic development. Each uterine horn was divided into three equal length sections by ligature to represent the lower- (cervical), mid- and upper (oviductal) sections of the horn. Warm PBS was then used to flush each oviduct (5ml) and each section of the uterine horns (20 m). Hyaluronic acid concentrations in flushings were determined using an HA specific ELISA (Hyaluronan Duo Set, R&D systems) and the volume of each flush was used to estimate total HA content (ng per flush). No differences (P>0.05) in HA content were found between uterine sections at any stage of gestation. HA content of uterine flushings decreased (P<0.0001) between the GV and 2-cell stages, and then steadily increased (P<0.001-0.01) through the morula and blastocyst stages of development. Implications: A lack of variation between the uterine segments suggests that regardless of position, HA levels will be sufficient in the recipient sow. Temporal variation in uterine HA content appears to be one reason why lack of synchrony between donor embryos and uterine secretions in recipient females is detrimental to embryonic survival after transfer.
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".