Biosynthetic Corneal Substitute Implantation in Dogs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To assess integration of a biosynthetic corneal implant in dogs. METHODS: Three normal adult laboratory Beagles underwent ophthalmic examinations, including slit-lamp biomicroscopy, indirect ophthalmoscopy, applanation tonometry, and Cochet-Bonnet aesthesiometry. Biosynthetic corneas fabricated from glutaraldehyde crosslinked collagen and copolymers of collagen and poly(N-isopropylacrylamide-co-acrylic acid-co-acryloxysuccinimide, denoted as TERP) were implanted into dogs by a modified epikeratoplasty technique. Ophthalmic examinations and aesthesiometry were performed daily for 5 days and then weekly thereafter for 16 weeks. Corneal samples underwent histopathological and transmission electron microscopy examination at 16 weeks. RESULTS: Implants were epithelialized by 7 days. Intraocular pressure was within normal range throughout the study. Aesthesiometry values dropped from an average of 3.67 cm preoperatively to less than 1 mm for all dogs for the first postoperative weeks. By week 16, the average Cochet-Bonnet value was 1.67 cm, demonstrating partial recovery of functional innervation of the implant. No inflammation or rejection of the implant occurred, and minimal haze formation was noted. Light microscopy revealed thickened but normal epithelium over the implant with fibroblast migration into the scaffold. On transmission electron microscopy, the basement membrane was irregular but present and adhesion complexes were noted. CONCLUSION: Biosynthetic corneal implantation is well tolerated in dogs, and the collagen-polymer hybrid construct holds promise for clinical application in animals and humans.
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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".