Brazilian Hydroxyapatite Implant
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate a synthetic hydroxyapatite (HA) (manufactured in Brazil) in a rabbit model. METHODS: Nine New Zealand white rabbits underwent enucleation of one eye followed by implantation of either a 12-mm Brazilian synthetic HA implant or a 12-mm BioEye, wrapped in polyglactin 910 mesh. Magnetic resonance imaging was performed to assess fibrovascular ingrowth 4, 8, and 12 weeks after implantation. Three animals were killed at each of the times for histopathologic examination. The Brazilian implant was also examined chemically and by scanning electron microscopy. RESULTS: The Brazilian HA was found to be heavier than either the BioEye or synthetic FCI3 HA implants. It did not have a visible, regularly arranged interconnected porous architecture. Rather, it had randomly appearing channels apparent on its external and internal surface in addition to large cystic areas within the body of the implant. Scanning electron microscopy revealed the implant to have a microporous architecture in addition to the large channels and cystic cavities. Histopathologically, central vascularization occurred by 4 weeks and was also present at 8 and 12 weeks. In three Brazilian implants an unrecognizable, nonbirefringent material was identified. The cause of it was unclear. Chemical analysis confirmed the implant to consist of pure HA. CONCLUSION: The Brazilian implant is pure HA that appears solid but has randomly arranged channels as well as a microporous architecture that allows vascularization to its center. It is heavier than other available HA implants and has the presence of an unidentified foreign material within it. Although this implant is less expensive and does not require a costly manufacturing process, the structural characteristics of the material do not offer any theoretical or clinical advantages. The implant is only available in Brazil at this time.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".