MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2975630521 · doi:10.3390/ani9100748

Combining Fixed-Time Insemination and Improved Catheter Design in an Effort to Improve Swine Reproduction Efficiency

2019· article· en· W2975630521 on OpenAlexaff
Matthew Mcbride, Rocio Amezcua, Glen Cassar, Terri L. O’Sullivan, Robert Friendship

Bibliographic record

VenueAnimals · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldVeterinary
TopicAnimal Behavior and Welfare Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSemenInseminationArtificial inseminationEquine chorionic gonadotropinOvulationMedicineSpermEstrous cycleGynecologyCatheterAnimal scienceAndrologyBiologyInternal medicinePregnancySurgeryHormone

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Conventional practice is to breed sows by artificial insemination (AI) at least twice using approximately three billion sperm per insemination upon estrus at standing heat. This research explored the use of combined technologies, including fixed-time insemination (FTAI) and an alternative catheter design that reportedly reduces semen backflow, in order to reduce the number of inseminations and the semen dosage and maintain reproductive efficiency. The FTAI technique used in this study was to inject I.M. 600 IU equine chorionic gonadotropin (eCG) at weaning and 5 mg porcine luteinizing hormone (pLH) to stimulate ovulation 80 h later, followed by a single insemination 36 h after the pLH injection. The two catheters used in this study were a conventional foam-tipped insemination catheter and a Gedis catheter. The Gedis catheter is designed to be completely inserted into the vagina. The semen is enclosed along the length of the rod and held in place by a gel cap that melts when inserted into the cervix. Sows were assigned to the following treatments: Group 1 (n = 135), bred twice with a conventional catheter and a standard semen dose of approximately three billion sperm in 80 mL; Group 2 (n = 123), FTAI with conventional catheter and a standard semen dose; Group 3 (n = 127), FTAI with Gedis catheter and a standard semen dose; Group 4 (n = 126), FTAI with Gedis catheter and a reduced semen dose with one billion sperm. The farrowing rates were 81.6%, 77.7%, 74.0%, and 62.7% for Groups 1 to 4, respectively. The likelihood of farrowing was lower for Group 3 and Group 4 compared to Group 1 (odds ratio (OR) = 0.57; p = 0.08 and OR = 0.35; p = 0.001, respectively). Likewise, litter size of Group 3 and Group 4 was smaller than Group 1 (p = 0.006 and p = 0.04, respectively). Overall, the combination of Gedis catheter and FTAI resulted in decreased reproductive performance that outweighed the value of using less semen.

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 score0.937
Threshold uncertainty score0.685

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.280 · 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
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnimalsSame topicAnimal Behavior and Welfare StudiesFrench-language works237,207