MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Microbial Growth in Saline Breast Implants and Saline Tissue Expanders

2002· article· en· W2079706502 on OpenAlexaff
Mitchell H. Brown, Michael Y. Markus, Bret Belchetz, Mary Vearncombe, John L. Semple

Bibliographic record

VenuePlastic & Reconstructive Surgery · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBreast Implant and Reconstruction
Canadian institutionsWomen's College HospitalUniversity of TorontoSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSalineMedicineImplantContaminationTissue expanderBreast implantSurgeryMastectomyAnesthesiaBreast cancerInternal medicineBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The subject of microbial growth within the saline medium of prosthetic breast implants has been one of great controversy in recent years. Although several articles have described microbial growth within the tissue surrounding implanted breast prostheses, few have attempted to determine the possibility of such contamination of the luminal saline. The authors studied the intraluminal saline medium of a series of explanted breast prostheses with the objective of identifying any microbial contamination. Over a 6-month period, a consecutive series of saline-filled breast implants and tissue expanders were removed from 37 patients. Under the supervision of a microbiologist, saline extracted from each implant was subjected to bacterial and fungal cultures, Gram staining, and acid-fast staining. A total of 24 saline-filled breast implants were removed from 15 patients, and 32 saline-filled tissue expanders were removed from 22 patients. The average length of implantation was 28.1 months for the implants and 7.1 months for the expanders. None of the saline within the implants or expanders within our series displayed any evidence of microbial contamination. These results suggest that microbial contamination of the luminal saline of prosthetic breast implants is an extremely unlikely event.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.566
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.210 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
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

Citations12
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePlastic & Reconstructive SurgerySame topicBreast Implant and ReconstructionFrench-language works237,207