Comparison of the initial ovarian response, the synchrony of oestrus and ovulation and chronic stress response after administration of 100 or 250 μg of <scp>GnRH</scp> to randomly cycling <i>Bos indicus</i> cattle
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study investigated the effects of administering saline, 100 or 250 μg of gonadotrophin releasing hormone (GnRH) on ovarian response, synchrony of oestrus and ovulation and chronic stress response in Bos indicus cattle. DESIGN: Randomised control. METHODS: Animals were either left untreated (n = 20) or on day 0 treated with an intravaginal progesterone releasing device and either saline (n = 24), 100 μg (n = 35), or 250 (n = 35) μg of GnRH, intramuscular (IM). Blood was sampled 1.4 h after administration of treatment to monitor concentrations of luteinising hormone (LH) and P4 in serum and again 5 days later. On day 5 intravaginal P4 releasing device were removed, cloprostenol was administered IM and again 8 h later. Oestrus and ovulation were then monitored with ultrasonography for 6.5 days. Hair was clipped on day 55 for analysis of hair cortisol concentrations (HCC). RESULTS: No significant differences were found between Saline and GnRH treatments in the odds of inducing a new corpus luteum (CL) and the synchrony of oestrus or ovulation. HCC did not differ significantly between treatments. Mean concentrations of LH in serum on day 0 were less in the Saline compared to 100 and 250 μg GnRH treatments but did not differ between different doses of GnRH. CONCLUSION: Mean concentrations of LH and the odds of inducing a new CL were not increased after administering 250 μg compared to 100 μg of GnRH. Animal handling events in the study did not influence HCC. Further research is needed to better optimise responses to GnRH in B. indicus cattle.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".