MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385695744 · doi:10.1016/j.animal.2023.100754

Review: Unveiling the effect of beta-nerve growth factor on the reproductive function in llamas and cows

2023· review· en· W4385695744 on OpenAlexaff
Marcelo Ratto, Luis Paiva, Rodrigo A. Carrasco, Mauricio E. Silva, César Ulloa-Leal, Vicente Francisco Ratto, José Goicochea-Vargas

Bibliographic record

Venueanimal · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicReproductive Physiology in Livestock
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersBritish Society of Animal Science
KeywordsOvulationEndocrinologyInternal medicineNerve growth factorFollicular phaseOvaryHypothalamusBiologyLuteal phaseHormoneEstrous cycleReceptorMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The actions of the beta-nerve growth factor (β-NGF) on the neuroendocrine and reproductive system have challenged classical views on the control of reproductive function. After endometrial absorption, β-NGF triggers ovulation and promotes the development of functional corpora lutea in camelids. In this article, we review evidence showing that, in camelids, β-NGF exerts its actions by acting in both the hypothalamus and the ovary. In the hypothalamus, β-NGF may induce gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) release by interacting with neurons or glial cells expressing receptors for β-NGF. The LH surge occurs under the influence of ovarian estradiol and requires the release of GnRH into the portal vessels to reach the pituitary gland. In the ovary, β-NGF may be promoting the differentiation of follicular to luteal cells by modifying the steroidogenic profile of ovarian follicular cells in both camelids and ruminants. Although the mechanisms for these actions are largely undetermined, we aim to offer an update on the current understanding of the effects of β-NGF controlling reproductive function in camelids and ruminants.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.939
Threshold uncertainty score0.279

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.076
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.230 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations5
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueanimalSame topicReproductive Physiology in LivestockFrench-language works237,207