Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To assess the problems associated with the Bioceramic (Aluminum oxide, Al(2)O(3)) orbital implant. METHODS: A consecutive case series of 107 patients receiving a Bioceramic orbital implant by two surgeons over a 3-year period were reviewed. The authors analyzed patient age, type of surgery, size of implant, peg system, follow-up duration, time of pegging, complications encountered, and treatment. RESULTS: Seven patients were lost to follow-up after 2 months, leaving 100 patients who were followed from 3 to 38 months (average, 13.4 months). Three patients died during the follow-up period (one with 2 months' follow-up, one with 7 months' follow-up, and the third with 9 months' follow-up). Implant-related problems occurred in 11 (11%) patients. Discharge occurred in 5 (5%) patients, implant exposure in 2 (2%), socket discomfort in 1 (1%), trochleitis in 1 (1%), and conjunctival thinning in 2 (2%). Peg problems occurred in 11 (34.3%) of 32 pegged patients: discharge in 4 (12.5%) and in 1 patient (3.1%) each, pyogenic granuloma, conjunctiva overgrowing the peg, implant exposure around the sleeve, clicking, accumulation of black material, and broken peg during insertion. Infection did not occur in any patient. CONCLUSIONS: The Bioceramic orbital implant represents an alternative porous orbital implant that is biocompatible with orbital tissues, easy to manufacture, structurally strong, and less expensive than other commercially available porous orbital implants (e.g., Bio-Eye hydroxyapatite implant). Problems encountered with its use are similar to those seen with the Bio-Eye orbital implants but appear to occur less often. The incidence of exposure associated with the Bioceramic implant is less than that reported for the Bio-Eye.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 it