Follicle–oocyte–sperminteractions <i>in vivo</i> and <i>in vitro</i> in pigs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In vitro culture has provided new information on the mechanisms involved in fertilization where two completely different cells fuse together.At the same time, results obtained in vitro have led to new questions.Does the follicle influence the final maturation process of the oocyte and does the oviduct regulate the normal behaviour of spermatozoa?Recent studies indicate a critical influence of both the follicular compartment and the oviduct on the normal fertilization process.Oocytes matured in vivo are more competent to induce pronuclear formation, but are still susceptible to polyspermy.Oocytes matured in vitro can develop fully after fertilization, but require the presence of follicular factors during culture to enhance their developmental competence.Fresh or frozen spermatozoa can penetrate oocytes in vitro, but their conditioning by differential centrifugation or oviductal cells influences the rate of polyspermy.The understanding of these influences is a prerequisite to enhancing in vitro production of pig embryos.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".