Effects of different hormones on superovulation of high yield Herolstein cattle
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Effects of different hormones on superovulation of high yield Herolstein cattle were studied.As a result,the outcome of superovulation by using Canadian FOLLTROPIN-V was better than Chinese and Australian Follicle-Stimulating Hormone(FSH) products,the rate of useful embryos was up to 94.2%, each Herolstein cattle could recover useful embryos 9.84±4.76; The outcome ofsuperovulation by using Canadian FOLLTROPIN-V was better than using American Sigma's Pregnant Mare Serum Gonadotrophin (PMSG) (average numbers of useful embryos,9.06±2.78/donor vs 4.54±2.12/donor); When Luteinizing hormone releasing hormone A3(LHRH-A3) was applied at first or second Artificial Insemination (AI) time,the rate of grade Ⅰ embryos was up to 57.3%,which was higher than the injection of Luteinizing hormone (LH) or human chorionic gonadotropin (HCG) groups (17.4% and 19.3%, respectively ).The results indicated that using LHRH -A3 might promote the quality of embryos.
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".