Efficiency analysis of standard and day 0 superovulatory protocols in Boer breed goats
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this research was to investigate the ovarian influence on the success of two superovulatory protocols in goats.Fifteen goats were used twice in the study in a crossover design: once within the control group where standard protocol was applied, and the other time in a modified, day 0 group, where no dominant follicle was present and the follicular cohort was homogenous ("Day 0 protocol").All the animals were synchronized with vaginal pessaries and superovulated with 6 decreasing doses of pFSH.Although the day 0 protocol significantly decreased the presence of the dominant follicle before the start of the superovulation treatment; it did not improve the superovulatory success.Fifty-four percent of goats in the control group had a dominant follicle which exerted a negative influence on the number of transferable embryos.The other 46% of goats from the same group had a very good superovulatory response, which improved the overall response of the control group in comparison with the day 0 group.Another reason for the lower superovulatory success of the day 0 protocol was the smaller number of second and third category follicles (3.5 -5.5 mm in size) at the onset of the superovulation protocol, that positively correlated with the number of the transferable embryos (r=0.67; P<0.05).In Boer goats, for the success of superovulatory treatment, the number of follicles of a certain size before the start of the superovulatory treatment has an effect as important as the effect of dominance.The application of the FSH hormone should start at the time when a suitable number of follicles belonging to the second category are present on the ovaries when performing the day 0 protocol.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".