Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate a new hydroxyapatite-coated titanium sleeve and titanium peg system for HA orbital implants. METHODS: The authors followed 54 patients receiving an HA-coated titanium sleeve and peg system and analyzed the complications associated with this peg system. The following data were recorded: type of surgery performed, size of implant used, type of HA used, time of pegging, follow-up duration, problems encountered, and treatment. RESULTS: Fifty-seven patients received the HA-coated titanium peg and sleeve system. The average duration of follow-up was 15 months (range, 3-30 months). Three patients were lost to follow-up after 1 month. Complications associated with peg placement in 54 patients included: discharge (9.2%), pyogenic granulomas (14.8%), peg falling out during prosthesis removal (9.2%), poor transfer of movement (1.8%), clicking (3.7%), conjunctiva overgrowing peg (1.8%), part of sleeve shaft visible (9.2%), peg drilled on an angle (1.8%), HA visible around peg hole (3.7%), and loose sleeve (3.7%). CONCLUSION: The HA-coated titanium sleeve and titanium peg is a new peg system available for HA orbital implants. Many of the complications associated with this peg system are similar to the commonly used polycarbonate peg system. Pyogenic granulomas and discharge, however, appear to be less frequently encountered with this new system. The HA-coated titanium sleeve and titanium pegs were well tolerated and appeared quieter in the socket than most polycarbonate pegs.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".