Concentration of progesterone during the development of the ovulatory follicle: I. Ovarian and embryonic responses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives were to evaluate the effects of differing progesterone concentrations during follicle development on follicular dynamics, fertilization, and embryo quality. Lactating Holstein cows (n=154) were assigned randomly to 1 of 2 treatments. Cows underwent a presynchronization of the estrous cycle composed of an injection of GnRH concurrently with the placement of a progesterone insert, an injection of PGF(2α) and insert removal 7 d later, and a second injection of GnRH 48 h later (study d -16). All cows were then submitted to a hormonal protocol identical to the presynchronization program starting on d 7 of the estrous cycle (study d -9). Cows enrolled in the high progesterone (HP) treatment received no further treatment. Cows in the low progesterone (LP) treatment received additional PGF(2α) injections on study d -14, -13.5, and -13 and again on study d -9, -7, -6.5, and -6. Ovaries were evaluated by ultrasonography, and blood was sampled for concentrations of progesterone and estradiol throughout the study. Uteri were flushed 6 d after artificial insemination (AI) and recovered oocytes-embryos were evaluated. Concentrations of progesterone were less for LP cows from study d -7 to -2; concentrations of estradiol at PGF(2α) and at the last GnRH of synchronization were greater for LP than HP. The proportion of cows in estrus at AI was greater for LP than for HP (38.0 vs. 5.3%). Ovulatory follicles of LP cows had larger diameters at the injections of PGF(2α) (17.2 vs. 14.6mm) and final GnRH (19.4 vs. 16.9%) of the synchronization, which resulted in a larger diameter of the corpus luteum 6 d after AI (24.3 vs. 22.6mm). Double ovulation after the last GnRH of the synchronization was increased in LP (18.6%) compared with HP (4.5%). Fertilization rate was similar and averaged 82.7%. The proportion of embryos and oocytes-embryos classified as grades 1 and 2, proportion of degenerated embryos, and unfertilized-degenerated oocytes-embryos were not different between LP and HP. Number of blastomeres did not differ between LP and HP, but the proportion of live blastomeres tended to be less for LP than HP (94.2 vs. 98.7%). Reducing progesterone concentrations during the synchronization program altered concentrations of estradiol and follicular dynamics, but resulted in similar fertilization and only minor changes in embryo quality.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".