MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3198086173 · doi:10.21423/aabppro20133803

Validation of two diagnostic methods for postpartum endometritis in dairy cows

2013· article· en· W3198086173 on OpenAlexaff
J. Denis-Robichaud, J. Dubuc

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Association of Bovine Practitioners Conference Proceedings · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicReproductive Physiology in Livestock
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEndometritisDairy cattleGynecologyObstetricsCytologyMedicinePostpartum periodPregnancyBiologyAnimal sciencePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Postpartum uterine diseases can impair reproductive performance of dairy cows. Diagnostic tools have been developed to identify cows at risk of poor subsequent reproductive performance. Most of these tools focus on identification of inflammation in the reproductive tract during the postpartum period. Endometrial cytology was proposed as a good tool to identify cows with cytological endometritis; however, cytology is not an easy technique to implement for an on-farm uterine health surveillance program in dairy herds because it requires the use of a microscope. Therefore, a more convenient on-farm method needs to be identified for determination of uterine status of dairy cows. Aleucocyte esterase (LE) colorimetric test is commercially available (Multistix®, Bayer Corporation, Elkhart, IN) and could be used to detect endometrial inflammation. The objectives of this study were to determine diagnostic criteria for endometritis in dairy cows by use of endometrial cytology and LE testing, to quantify the agreement between results of these two methods, and to quantify their impact on subsequent reproductive performance.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.026
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.077

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.026
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.287 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Association of Bovine Practitioners Conference ProceedingsSame topicReproductive Physiology in LivestockFrench-language works237,207