MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2069772965 · doi:10.1097/iop.0b013e3181936839

Osteogenesis With Hematopoiesis Simulating Infection in a Hydroxyapatite Orbital Implant

2009· article· en· W2069772965 on OpenAlexaff
David R. Jordan, Michel J. Belliveau, Seymour Brownstein, Ruth Padmore

Bibliographic record

VenueOphthalmic Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicOcular Disorders and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaOttawa Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineImplantExtramedullary hematopoiesisSurgeryConjunctivaPyogenic granulomaDentistryPathologyHaematopoiesisStem cell

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A 28-year-old woman underwent secondary orbital implant surgery with placement of a hydroxyapatite implant. Over the next 7 years she underwent 3 drilling procedures. She began having copious discharge 1 year after the last drilling procedure. She was seen on numerous occasions with socket discharge, unresponsive to a variety of topical and oral antibiotics. Clinically, with the conjunctiva diffusely inflamed, the implant tender to touch, and the presence of a pyogenic granuloma, implant infection was suspected and the implant subsequently removed. Histopathologic assessment revealed widespread lamellar bone formation, including focal areas of marrow with active extramedullary hematopoiesis. There was no evidence of an inflammatory process or infection. Postoperatively the patient's symptoms and signs resolved. Extramedullary hematopoiesis within hydroxyapatite implants is rare. Porous orbital implant infection is also rare. Osteogenesis with extramedullary hematopoiesis simulating implant infection has not previously been reported.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.209 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designCase report
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOphthalmic Plastic and Reconstructive SurgerySame topicOcular Disorders and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207