MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2902838787 · doi:10.1071/rdv31n1ab198

198 Superovulatory response in cows undergoing aromatase inhibitor treatment

2018· article· en· W2902838787 on OpenAlexaffabout
E. M. Zwiefelhofer, Ana Rita Tavares Krause, Laurence Boligon de Araujo, R.J. Mapletoft, Gregory P. Adams

Bibliographic record

VenueReproduction Fertility and Development · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicReproductive Physiology in Livestock
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLetrozoleOvulationEstrous cycleInternal medicineMedicineAromatase inhibitorEndocrinologyFollicular phaseHormoneAromataseAndrology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aromatase inhibitor letrozole has been used in the treatment of infertility in women by inducing mild ovarian superstimulation or augmenting the ovarian response to FSH treatment. The effect has been attributed to an apparent up-regulation of FSH receptors on granulosa cells as a result of increased androgens (Weil et al. 1999 J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab. 84, 2951-2956). The objective of this study was to determine whether letrozole will augment the superstimulatory response in FSH-treated cattle. Mature, non-lactating Holstein cows (n = 30) were given 2 luteolytic doses of PGF2a 12 h apart and scanned daily by transrectal ultrasonography to detect ovulation. Transvaginal ultrasound-guided ablation of follicles =5 mm was performed in all cows as a group, at 5 to 8 days after ovulation. On the day of ablation, cows were assigned randomly to 2 groups (n = 15 per group) and given either an intravaginal letrozole-releasing device or a blank device for 5 days. Coinciding with expected wave emergence (Day 0), cows in both groups were given 8 doses of 50 mg of pFSH (Folltropin; Vetoquinol, Lure, France) IM at 12-h intervals, and PGF2a on Days 3 and 3.5. At the time of the second PGF2a, vaginal devices were removed and paint was applied to the tailhead to facilitate detection of oestrus. On Day 5, cows were given gonadotropin-releasing hormone (100 mg gonadorelin) IM and artificially inseminated 12 and 24 h later. Ova/embryos were collected by transcervical uterine flush on Day 12. The ovaries were examined by ultrasonography on Day 0, 3.5, 5, 6.5, and 12 to record the follicular and luteal response. Nominal data were compared between groups by t-test and by ANOVA for repeated-measures and are expressed as mean ± s.e.m. Binomial data were compared by chi-squared test. The number of follicles at wave emergence did not differ between letrozole and control groups (24.6 ± 3.1 and 26.5 ± 3.3 respectively; P = 0.68). There was no treatment effect or treatment × day interaction in the number of follicles >8 mm on Day 3.5, 5, and 6.5. Letrozole-treated cows exhibited oestrus later than controls (50.3 ± 1.1 h v. 40.7 ± 2.0 h after first PGF2a; P < 0.001) and had less variance in interval to oestrus (residuals, 3.1 ± 0.48 h v. 6.7 ± 0.87 h; P < 0.01). The number of CL on Day 6.5 was lower in the letrozole group than in the control group (9.1 ± 1.1 v. 12.3 ± 1.1; P = 0.05). The proportion of ovulations (number of CL on Day 12 over number of follicles =3 mm on Day 0) was lower in the letrozole group than in the control group (0.65 ± 0.05 v. 0.82 ± 0.08; P = 0.02). The total number of ova/embryos collected per cow did not differ between letrozole and control groups (5.0 ± 1.9 v. 5.4 ± 1.8; P = 0.75), nor did the number of transferable embryos differ (3.0 ± 1.2 v. 4.3 ± 1.5; P = 0.56). In conclusion, treatment with a letrozole-releasing device during ovarian superstimulation did not improve the superovulatory response or embryo collection rate in mature Holstein cows, but letrozole treatment resulted in more synchronous oestrus, which may be used in the design of a fixed-time AI protocol following superstimulatory treatment in cattle. This research was supported by the Alberta Livestock and Meat Agency.

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)0.001
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 score0.853
Threshold uncertainty score0.306

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.214 · 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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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