MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2556534146 · doi:10.2527/jam2016-0491

0491 Dynamics of progesterone concentrations and insemination outcomes in dairy cows

2016· article· en· W2556534146 on OpenAlexaff
T.C. Bruinjé, M. Gobikrushanth, Romeu Cardoso Guimarães, D.J. Ambrose

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Animal Science · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicReproductive Physiology in Livestock
Canadian institutionsAgriculture Food and Rural DevelopmentUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInseminationDairy cattleAndrologyAnimal scienceBiologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective was to evaluate the association between milk progesterone (P4) concentrations and its dynamics with insemination outcomes. In-line milk P4 records (Herd Navigator, DeLaval Inc.) relating to 605 inseminations (AI) were assessed from two dairy farms. Only cows that had confirmed luteolysis (P4 declined to < 5ng/mL) and ovulation (P4 increased to > 5 ng/mL) were included. The day of luteolysis was considered d 2 and AI occurred on d0. Progesterone at d 2, 5, 10, 14, and maximum P4 (Peak) within d 21 were considered, in addition to the rate of increase in P4 (e.g., d 2 to d 5). Insemination outcomes were defined as open (P4 > 5 ng/mL for < 20 d; n = 357), pregnant (P4 > 5 ng/mL for > 45d; n = 170) or pregnancy loss (P4 > 5 ng/mL for > 20 to ≤ 45 d, n = 78). Progesterone concentrations were modeled against outcomes of AI and parity, while herd and AI (first or second) were considered random variables, and data analyzed using MIXED procedure of SAS. Milk P4 at d 2 tended to be lower (P = 0.10) in pregnant (3.33) than in open (3.44) or cows that suffered pregnancy loss (3.44). Pregnant cows had greater P4 (P < 0.01) than open cows at d 10, 14 and at Peak (9.6, 18.3 and 23.4 vs. 8.3, 16.7 and 20.3, respectively). Rate of P4 increase (ng/mL/d) was also greater (P < 0.01) in pregnant than in open cows from d 2 to 14, d 2 to Peak, d 5 to 10, d 5 to 14 and d 5 to Peak (0.9, 1.0, 1.1, 1.6 and 1.5 vs. 0.8, 0.9, 0.9, 1.4 and 1.3, respectively). However, the aforesaid dynamics of P4 did not differ among cows that remained pregnant or suffered pregnancy loss. Primiparous cows had higher P4 (P < 0.03) than multiparous cows at d 2, 5, 10, 14 and at Peak (3.5, 4.8, 10.8, 19.7 and 23.6 vs. 3.3, 3.0, 7.7, 16.0 and 21.2 ng/mL, respectively). Furthermore, primiparous cows had a greater rate of P4 increase (P ≤ 0.05) than multiparous from d 2 to 5, d 2 to 14, d 2 to Peak, d 5 to 10, d 5 to 14, d 5 to Peak and d 10 to 14 (0.2, 1.0, 1.0, 1.2, 1.6, 1.4 and 2.2 vs. −0.1, 0.8, 0.9, 0.9, 1.4, 1.3 and 2.0, respectively). Cows that conceived, regardless of whether or not they suffered pregnancy loss, had greater P4 concentrations (except on d 2) and a greater rate of P4 increase than open cows. Also, primiparous cows consistently had greater P4 concentrations and rate of increase than multiparous cows.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.247 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Animal Science→Same topicReproductive Physiology in Livestock→French-language works237,207→