MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2559579323 · doi:10.1071/rdv29n1ab103

103 INFLUENCE OF ESTRUS EXPRESSION AND TREATMENT WITH GONADOTROPIN-RELEASING HORMONE ON PREGNANCY RATES IN RECIPIENTS SYNCHRONIZED WITH PROGESTERONE DEVICES AND ESTRADIOL AND TRANSFERRED AT A FIXED TIME

2016· article· en· W2559579323 on OpenAlexaff
A. V. Cedeño, A. Tríbulo, S. Andrada, J. L. Barajas, J. R. Fonseca, Antonio Ruíz, R. Tríbulo, H. Tríbulo, R.J. Mapletoft, G. A. Bó

Bibliographic record

VenueReproduction Fertility and Development · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicReproductive Physiology in Livestock
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEstrous cycleCorpus luteumEndocrinologyInternal medicineFollicleMedicineEstradiol benzoatePregnancyEmbryo transferHormoneAnimal scienceBiologyOvariectomized rat

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An experiment was designed to evaluate whether expression of oestrus in recipients synchronized with progesterone devices and oestradiol affects pregnancy rates to a fixed-time embryo transfer (FTET). A secondary objective was to determine whether administration of gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) to those recipients not showing oestrus by 48 h after device removal had an effect on pregnancy rates. Mature, non-lactating beef recipients (Bonsmara, Brangus, and Braford; n = 729), with a corpus luteum (CL) or a follicle =8 mm in diameter detected by ultrasonography (Mindray DP 30, Shenzhen, China) and body condition score 2 to 4 (1 to 5 scale) were synchronized in 7 replicates. On Day 0, recipients received a progesterone device (DIB 0.5 g, Zoetis, Buenos Aires, Argentina) and 2 mg of oestradiol benzoate (Gonadiol, Zoetis). On Day 8, DIB were removed and recipients received 400 IU eCG (Novormon 5000, Zoetis) plus 0.5 mg of oestradiol cypionate (Cipiosyn, Zoetis) and 500 µg of cloprostenol (Cyclase, Zoetis). In addition, all cows were tail-painted on the sacrococcygeal area (CeloTest, Biotay, Buenos Aires, Argentina) at DIB removal and were observed to determine the expression of oestrus, according to the percentage of paint loss 48 h later. The animals that showed oestrus (paint loss >30%) were recorded, and those with paint loss =30% (not in oestrus) were randomly allocated to receive 100 µg of gonadorelin (GnRH; Gonasyn, Zoetis) or no treatment. On Day 17, all recipients were examined by ultrasonography and those with a CL =18 mm (G1), =16 and <18 mm (G2), or =14 and <16 mm (G3) in diameter received in vivo-produced frozen-thawed embryos by direct transfer or fresh in vitro-produced embryos. Pregnancy was diagnosed by ultrasonography at 23 days after FTET, and data were analysed by logistic regression. There were no differences between replicates, in vivo- and in vitro-produced embryos, or operators (P > 0.2). However, the proportion of recipients transferred and pregnant (P/FTET) was higher (P < 0.05) for those that showed oestrus at 48 h after DIB removal (422/454, 93.0% and 227/471, 48.2%) than those that did not show oestrus (109/211, 51.7% and 45/120, 37.5%). Within the recipients not showing oestrus, P/FTET was significantly higher (P < 0.05) in those that received GnRH (34/74, 45.9%) than in those that did not receive GnRH (12/46, 26.1%). There was a significant interaction (P < 0.05) between CL diameter and expression of oestrus. When recipients had CL =18 mm in diameter (G1), P/FTET did not differ (oestrus: 164/338, 48.5% v. no oestrus 30/65, 46.2%); however, when CL diameter was <18 mm and =14 mm (G2 and G3), P/FTET was higher (P < 0.05) in those that showed oestrus (37/85, 43.5%) than in those that did not show oestrus (11/43, 25.6%). Finally, P/FTET was higher (P < 0.05) in recipients with a CL (268/573, 46.8%) on Day 0 than in those with follicles >8 mm in diameter (4/18, 22.2%). In conclusion, the expression of oestrus significantly affected the percentage of recipients selected for embryo transfer and P/FTET. Furthermore, treatment of recipients not showing oestrus by 48 h after DIB removal with GnRH at that time increased P/FTET.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.758
Threshold uncertainty score0.272

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.198 · 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 teacher head, 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 DevelopmentSame topicReproductive Physiology in LivestockFrench-language works237,207