MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2558484957 · doi:10.1071/rdv29n1ab202

202 ANTRAL FOLLICULAR COUNTS AND SUPERSTIMULATORY RESPONSE IN PREPUBERTAL CALVES

2016· article· en· W2558484957 on OpenAlexaffabout
Ana Rita Tavares Krause, F. C. F. Dias, Gregory P. Adams, R.J. Mapletoft, W. F. Huanca, E. M. Zwiefelhofer, Jaswant Singh

Bibliographic record

VenueReproduction Fertility and Development · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicReproductive Physiology in Livestock
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAntral follicleFollicular phaseBiologyFollicleInternal medicineOvarian follicleQuartileGonadotropinEndocrinologyAndrologyMedicineAnimal scienceHormone

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The number of follicles recruited in successive waves are consistent in postpubertal cattle (Singh et al. 2004 Theriogenology 62, 227), but ovarian response to gonadotropin stimulation is highly variable among animals. We tested the hypotheses that the number of follicles present at wave emergence are repeatable and are predictive of superstimulatory response in prepubertal calves; therefore, we expected that calves with higher antral follicular counts (AFC; follicles = 1mm) at wave emergence will result in a greater number of follicles available for oocyte collection after a conventional 4-day gonadotropin treatment. Hereford crossbreed calves (n = 52; 5.1 to 6.8 months of age) were ranked according to the number of follicles = 1 mm detected in transrectal ultrasound video recordings of both ovaries at the time of wave emergence (First AFC; range: 12 to 53 follicles). Calves in the bottom (Low AFC; <20 follicles; n = 6) and top (High AFC; >32 follicles; n = 5) quartiles were selected for ovarian superstimulation. Emergence of a new follicular wave (Day 0) was induced by transvaginal follicle ablation (14 to 57 days after first AFC; 5.7 to 7.1 months of age), AFC were performed again (Second AFC), and calves were given eight 12-hourly IM injections of 25 mg of pFSH (Folltropin-V®, Bioniche Animal Health Inc., Belleville, Canada) beginning on Day 0.5. All calves were given 12.5 mg of pLH (Lutropin-V®, Bioniche Animal Health Inc.) IM 12 h after the last FSH and number of follicles equal to 3, 3 to 5, 6 to 8, and equal to 6 and 9 were counted 24 h after LH treatment (at the time of oocyte collection). A t-test was used to compare the number of follicles and ovarian response (Low v. High AFC). Values of Pearson (0.8; P < 0.001) and Spearman (0.9; P < 0.001) correlation coefficients between First and Second AFC indicate strong repeatability of numbers of follicles present at the time of wave emergence. As expected, mean number of follicles were greater (P = 0.01) in the High- than Low-AFC group (24.2 ± 2.0 v. 15.7 ± 1.0) at the Second AFC. The High-AFC group had a greater number of follicles at oocyte collection than Low AFC for 6 to 8 mm (13.4 ± 2.1 v. 5.3 ± 1.7; P = 0.01), but not for 3 to 5 mm (9.4 ± 2.5 v. 5.3 ± 2.1; P = 0.2) or 9 mm (7.6 ± 2.9 v. 4.8 ± 2.0; P = 0.4) size categories. However, High AFC resulted in a greater total number of follicles 3 (30.4 ± 3.1 v. 15.5 ± 3.2; P = 0.009) and 6 mm (21.0 ± 4.1 v. 10.2 ± 2.9; P = 0.05). The number of 6-mm follicles at the end of superstimulation represented 80 and 60% of 1-mm follicles at wave emergence in the High- and Low-AFC groups (P = 0.3). In conclusion, the number of follicles at the beginning of a wave are predictive of follicles recruited into subsequent waves in 7-month-old calves, and higher AFC at wave emergence resulted in a greater number of 3- and 6-mm follicles available for oocyte collection. Research was supported by the Natural Science and Engineering Council of Canada (NSERC). Hormones provided by Vetoquinol Inc. ARTK funded by CNPq-Science Without Borders, Brazil.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.207 · 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

Citations2
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReproduction Fertility and DevelopmentSame topicReproductive Physiology in LivestockFrench-language works237,207