Characterization of epididymal sperm from Spix's yellow‐toothed cavies (<i>Galea spixii</i> Wagler, 1831) recovered by different methods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The aim of the present study was to characterize the epididymal sperm of Spix's yellow‐toothed cavy (Galea spixii) through two different recovery methods. Nine sexually mature males were euthanized and the complexes, testes–epididymis, were dissected. For each animal, one epididymis was processed by flotation method and the other was processed by retrograde flushing method, both using a TES‐based buffered media. After recovery, we evaluated the sperm for motility, vigour, viability, functional membrane integrity and morphology. Morphometric data from the different sperm regions were evaluated by using an appropriate software. After recovery, both methods provide similar values for all the sperm parameters, aiming the recovery of more than 300 × 106 sperm, presenting >50% motile sperm, with normal morphology and functional membrane. The total sperm length in this sperm was 48.87 ± 0.1, and the sperm head presented 9.4%, on average. A notable characteristic was the prominent acrosome found in the G. spixii sperm. In conclusion, we demonstrate that either flotation or retrograde flushing methods are suitable for the recovery of sperm from cauda epididymis of Spix's yellow‐toothed cavies.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".