MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413796466 · doi:10.3390/ani15172528

Development of IVF Porcine Embryos in Microwell Culture System

2025· article· en· W4413796466 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Kayode B Balogun, Zoltán Macháty

Bibliographic record

VenueAnimals · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReproductive Biology and Fertility
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersHatch
KeywordsBlastocystEmbryoAndrologyBiologyEmbryogenesisEmbryo cultureMedicineGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We investigated the development of IVF porcine embryos incubated in microwells of Well-of-the-Well (WOW) culture dishes. In Experiment 1, 500 embryos were cultured under five different culture conditions: 10 individual embryos in microwells covered by 50 μL PZM-3 medium (50 μL WOW); 10 embryos together in a well of 50 μL PZM-3 (50 μL Well); 10 embryos in microwells covered by 20 μL PZM-3 (20 μL WOW); 10 embryos in a well of 20 μL PZM-3 (20 μL Well); and 10 embryos in a 20 μL drop of PZM-3 in traditional dishes (control). In Experiment 2, the best-performing treatment group from Experiment 1 (50 μL WOW) was further compared to control using a total of 350 embryos. There was no difference in the percentage of cleaved embryos among the groups in both experiments. In Experiment 1, the percentage of blastocysts from 50 μL WOW (42.00 ± 6.29%) was higher (p = 0.001) than in 50 μL Well (29.00 ± 4.58%), 20 μL WOW (13.00 ± 2.13%), 20 μL Well (20.00 ± 2.98%) and control (25.00 ± 5.22%). Similarly, in Experiment 2, blastocyst formation and nuclei number in the blastocysts from 50 μL WOW (37.86 ± 3.95% and 38.97 ± 1.80) were higher (p = 0.040 and p = 0.017) than in the control (28.10 ± 2.64% and 33.21 ± 1.56). The results indicate that individual culture in microwells improves the development of IVF pig embryos.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.566
Threshold uncertainty score0.214

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 studies0.0000.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.275 · 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 designBench or experimental
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 venueAnimalsSame topicReproductive Biology and FertilityFrench-language works237,207