Non-inferiority randomized field clinical trial of two GnRH commercial products used in a systematic double-ovsynch protocol at first breeding in dairy cows
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The use of the double-ovsynch (DBLOV) protocol at first service in dairy herds has become more popular in dairy practice because of its potential to increase the conception risk (CR), especially in primiparous cows, compared with usual ovsynch or presynch protocols. The use of the DBLOV protocol implies giving four injections of commercial GnRH products to each cow. Previous studies have raised issues about the efficacy of GnRH hydrochloride (Factrel®, Zoetis Animal Health) to induce ovulation compared with other GnRH forms. However, few studies have reported CR when using the DBLOV protocol in a large number of dairy cows under field conditions. The objective of this study was to compare CR at first service when using GnRH hydrochloride (Factrel®) or GnRH acetate (Fertiline®, Vetoquinol) in a systematic DBLOV protocol in dairy cows under field conditions. The hypothesis was that there would be no significant difference between first-service CR between both GnRH forms.
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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".