<i>In vivo</i> evaluation of a novel electrically conductive polypyrrole/poly(<scp>D</scp>,<scp>L</scp>‐lactide) composite and polypyrrole‐coated poly(<scp>D</scp>,<scp>L</scp>‐lactide‐<i>co</i>‐glycolide) membranes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study evaluated the in vivo biocompatibility and biodegradation behavior of a novel polypyrrole (PPy)/poly(D,L-lactide) (PDLLA) composite and PPy-coated poly(D,L-lactide-co-glycolide) membranes. Test membranes were implanted subcutaneously in rats for 3-120 days. The biocompatibility was assessed by quantifying the alkaline and acid phosphatase secretion, the immunohistochemical staining of the ED-2-positive macrophages, and the histology at the tissue/material interface. The degradation was investigated using scanning electron microscopy. Pure PDLLA and poly(D,L-lactide-co-glycolide) membranes were used as references, whereas expanded polytetrafluoroethylene and a commercial styrene-butadiene rubber were used as controls. The enzyme activity of the PPy-containing specimens was shown to be similar to that of the references. The histological findings were consistent with the enzymatic results, showing a mild-to-moderate acute inflammation followed by a resolution of the inflammatory response with a decrease in inflammatory cells for each biodegradable membrane. The tissue reactions to the PPy, which was either in the form of nanoparticles or surface coating, were comparable to the response to the neighboring biodegradable materials. Elevated ED-2-positive macrophage populations appeared as early as day 3 in the loose connective tissue surrounding the implants. The density of these populations was related to the degree of inflammation. Scanning electron microscopy showed that the degradation of the PPy/PDLLA composite was not affected by the presence of PPy.
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) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 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 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".