The effect of amniotic fluid olfactory stimulation on salivary oxytocin in anestrus female dogs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Amniotic fluid is known to attract mammals around parturition, but its hormonal impact through sensory stimulation remains unclear. This study investigated the impact of amniotic fluid olfactory stimulation on salivary oxytocin (sOXT) in Labrador Retriever. Dogs were divided into a control group (CG, n = 9) receiving water, and a treatment group (TG, n = 8) receiving amniotic fluid. Saliva samples were collected from each dog before (T0) and 10 minutes after administration (T1). Multiparous bitches had significantly higher sOXT levels (mean ± S.D. = 114.1 ± 16.2 pg/ml) than primiparous ones (mean ± S.D. = 93.6 ± 16.38 pg/ml) at T0 (t = 2.56; p = 0.021). However, no significant differences in sOXT concentrations were found between CG and TG at either time point, nor within groups between T0 and T1. Although not statistically significant, yellow-coated dams showed higher sOXT levels (108.1 ± 20.22 pg/ml) compared to chocolate (100.6 ± 22.98 pg/ml) and black (106.2 ± 17.45 pg/ml) ones. A positive correlation was observed between age and sOXT at T0 (r = 0.445; p = 0.035). These results suggest that amniotic fluid alone does not increase sOXT and is likely insufficient to induce maternal behavior in anestrus dogs.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".