Effect of injectable progesterone on follicular development in lactating beef cows treated with estradiol plus a low-concentration progesterone device
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The effect of injectable progesterone was evaluated along with estradiol benzoate (EB) on the fate of the dominant follicle (DF) present in the ovary at the beginning of low progesterone-based TAI protocol. All cattle were given 500 µg cloprostenol im (PGF; Schering-Plough Animal Health for Estrumate, Pointe-Claire, QC, Canada) twice, 11 d apart, and allocated into two groups: Estradiol group (E group, n = 11) and Estradiol-Progesterone group (EP group, n = 11). Ten days after the second PGF (Day 0), all cattle were given an intravaginal progesterone device with half progesterone concentration (Cue-Mate with a single pod containing 0.78 g progesterone). Concurrently, all cattle were given 1.5 mg im of estradiol benzoate in 3 mL of canola oil and PGF im on Day 0 of the protocol in a crossover design, in which each cow received both treatments. Cows in the EP group also received 100 mg im progesterone (Sigma) in 2 mL of canola oil. On Day 8, progesterone devices were removed and all cattle were given PGF im. All statistical analyses were performed with SAS 9.0. The DF present on Day 0 ovulated in 76% (16/21) of cows from E group and 28.6% (6/21) of cows from EP group (P = 0.002). After progesterone device removal, the size of ovulatory follicle did not differ between groups (E group, 15.5 ± 0.43 mm vs EP group, 15.8 ± 0.98 mm; P = 0.82). These follicles ovulated in 81.3 ± 3.1 h in E group and 71.0 ± 6.1 h in EP group (P = 0.13). In conclusion, injectable progesterone reduced the proportion of cows that ovulate the dominant follicle present in the ovary at the beginning of estradiol-progesterone-based protocols. However, no difference was detected on time of ovulation after progesterone device removal between groups.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".