MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407548570 · doi:10.58292/ct.v17.10988

Prepartum vaginal microbiota and postpartum uterine microbiota in cows

2025· article· en· W4407548570 on OpenAlexaff
Ali Bazzazan, Márcio Costa, Mariela Segura, Réjean Lefebvre

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Theriogenology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicReproductive Physiology in Livestock
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalCegep de Saint Hyacinthe
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPostpartum periodPhysiologyBiologyAndrologyGynecologyMedicineObstetricsPregnancyGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Postpartum uterus clears bacteria within 6 weeks; however, up to 40% of dairy cows cannot eliminate uterine infection. Culture-independent approaches based on the analysis of the 16S rRNA gene indentified reduced richness and diversity in the reproductive tract of cows with endometritis. Goal was to characterize the vaginal microbiota before calving and the uterine microbiota after calving in cows that had or not developed endometritis. We compared the results of DNA sequencing with conventional culture methods in uterine samples collected 21 days after calving. Vaginal samples (via cytobrush) from multiparous cows (n = 61) were obtained 1 week before calving (-1w) and uterine samples 1 week (+1w), 3 weeks (+3w), and 5 weeks (+5w) after calving. Samples of healthy cows (n = 11) and cows with endometritis (n = 11) were selected for DNA extraction and 16S rRNA sequencing. Richness and diversity measures in the uterine microbiota were not different between healthy and diseased groups (Chao p = 0.17, Simpson p = 0.29) at -1w, +1w and +5w. Uterine microbiota composition differed (p = 0.03) between groups only at 3 weeks after calving. Diseased cows had a lower relative abundance of Firmicutes and Bacteroidetes and a higher abundance of Actinobacteria than healthy cows. Bacteria that grew in culture were often represented within the most abundant bacterial genera in the DNA sequencing 3 weeks after calving.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.863
Threshold uncertainty score0.341

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.292 · 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 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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical TheriogenologySame topicReproductive Physiology in LivestockFrench-language works237,207