MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2558922377 · doi:10.1071/rdv29n1ab104

104 FACTORS AFFECTING PREGNANCY RATES AND EMBRYO/FETAL LOSSES IN RECIPIENTS RECEIVING IN VITRO-PRODUCED EMBRYOS BY FIXED-TIME EMBRYO TRANSFER

2016· article· en· W2558922377 on OpenAlexaff
A. Tríbulo, A. V. Cedeño, Berenice Bernal, S. Andrada, J. L. Barajas, José Antonio Ortega, Juan Mauricio Pardo Oviedo, H. Tríbulo, R. Tríbulo, R.J. Mapletoft, G. A. Bó

Bibliographic record

VenueReproduction Fertility and Development · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReproductive Biology and Fertility
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCorpus luteumEstradiol benzoateEmbryo transferEmbryoAndrologyPregnancyEndocrinologyProstaglandinInternal medicineHormoneBiologyMedicineOvariectomized rat

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A retrospective analysis evaluated pregnancy rates and embryo losses with in vitro-produced embryos in a commercial embryo transfer program on 15 different beef farms. Recipients were beef cows and heifers (n = 1841) that were synchronized with 5 different protocols and transferred at a fixed-time (FTET). Recipients were examined by ultrasonography on Day 0, and those with a corpus luteum (CL) or a follicle =8 mm in diameter and with body condition score 2 to 4 (1 to 5 scale) were synchronized. The synchronization treatments were as follows. (T1) Recipients received an intravaginal device with 0.5 g of progesterone plus 2 mg of oestradiol benzoate on Day 0; device removal, plus 500 µg of cloprostenol (prostaglandin F2a), 400 IU of eCG, and 0.5 mg of oestradiol cypionate on Day 8; and FTET on Day 17. (T2) This treatment was similar to T1 but 1 mg of oestradiol cypionate was injected at device removal instead of 0.5 mg of oestradiol cypionate. (T3) This treatment was similar to T1 except that animals were tail-painted on Day 8 and observed on Day 10. Those with the tail-paint intact on Day 10 received 100 µg of gonadorelin (gonadotropin-releasing hormone) and all recipients were FTET on Day 17. (T4) Recipients received a progesterone device on Day 0; device removal, prostaglandin F2a, and eCG on Day 5; gonadotropin-releasing hormone on Day 8; and FTET on Day 15. (T5) Recipients received a progesterone device and 2 mg of oestradiol benzoate on Day 0; device removal, prostaglandin F2a, and eCG on Day 6; gonadotropin-releasing hormone on Day 9; and FTET on Day 16. On the day of FTET all recipients with CL =18 mm in diameter (G1), =16 and <18 mm in diameter (G2), and =14 mm and <16 mm in diameter (G3) received in vitro-produced fresh embryos. Pregnancy was diagnosed by ultrasonography at 30 and 60 days of gestation, and data were analysed by logistic regression. The overall proportion of recipients synchronized that were FTET was 80.8% (1487/1841), with a 30-day pregnancy rate to FTET (P/FTET) of 45.6% (678/1487) and the rate of 30- to 60-day embryo/fetal loses on the 528 recipients that were re-checked at 60 days was 12.8% (68/528). There were no significant differences in P/FTET among operators, animal category, time of the year, embryo stage, or body condition score; however, there was a significant effect of farm (P < 0.001) and CL diameter (P < 0.05), but no interaction between CL diameter and farm or treatment (P > 0.1). Recipients with G1 (443/953, 46%) and G2 (221/462, 47%) CL had higher pregnancy rates than those with G3 CL (23/71, 32%). There was a significant effect of synchronization treatment on the proportion of recipients transferred and on P/FTET (P < 0.01) that was highly influenced by farm (farm by treatment interaction P < 0.01). The proportions of recipients selected for embryo transfer were as follows: T1: 386/486, 79.4%; T2: 233/331, 70.3%; T3: 342/377, 90.7%; T4: 126/160, 78.7%; and T5: 400/487, 82.1%. The P/FTET were as follows: T1: 190/386, 49.2%; T2: 96/233, 41.2%; T3: 175/342, 51.1%; T4: 49/126, 38.8%; and T5: 168/400, 42.0%. Although 30- to 60-day embryo/fetal losses were not influenced by synchronization treatments, they were highly influenced by farm (P < 0.001) and ranged from 0 to 34.5%. In conclusion, P/FTET in a commercial program with beef in vitro-produced embryos was influenced by factors related to the recipient (CL diameter) and the environment (farm), whereas embryo/fetal losses were influenced by farm but not treatment or recipient factors.

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)0.001
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.240 · 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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReproduction Fertility and Development→Same topicReproductive Biology and Fertility→French-language works237,207→