The peri-implant breast capsule: An immunophenotypic study of capsules taken at explantation surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Silicone-based breast implants continue to be the focus of many studies attempting to correlate implant failure to clinical and pathological factors. Routine pathology of peri-implant capsule is extensively described in the literature. The actual significance of the cellular events remains unconfirmed, particularly with reference to clinical outcome. This study reviews our experience with explanted capsules. The study makes specific reference to the immunohistochemistry of the cells participating in the capsule and the significance of the immunophenotypic characterization of these cells to clinical outcome. The use of a wide selection of immunomarkers for T and B lymphocytes and histiocytes provided no supporting evidence for local cell participation in the capsule, which may indicate the presence of an immunological reaction present in the capsule at the time of explantation. One was only able to confirm the presence of a low grade inflammatory process and progression to fibrosis and calcification over time. Statistical correlation was obtained only between Baker grade of capsular contracture and CD3/CD68 immunomarker positivity. CD45RO did show correlation with pain. No correlation was demonstrated with calcification. The results obtained in this study highlighted the need for further investigations into the mechanism of histiocyte and fibrocyte recruitment and activation in the capsule, a possible source of pain and contracture, which is a serious long-term clinical finding leading to the necessity for explantation.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".