Accumulation of a Black Material Around Some Titanium Coupling Posts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To report 5 patients with a black material accumulating in the conjunctiva around the titanium peg and sleeve systems. METHODS: Retrospective small case series. The clinical features of 5 patients were reviewed. Histopathologic analysis was performed on specimens from 3 patients. Neutron activation analysis was performed on 1 sample. RESULTS: Five asymptomatic patients with black material accumulating in the conjunctiva at the conjunctival-titanium peg interface were evaluated. All patients had a hydroxyapatite-coated titanium sleeve with a titanium peg in position. Histopathologic analysis performed on specimens from 3 patients revealed a mixed inflammatory cell infiltrate with focal areas of a black, foreign-appearing material showing birefringence under polarized light that was predominantly intracytoplasmic. This black material did not respond to bleaching, and in 2 patients, it showed positive staining for iron (Perls method). The material from one patient was evaluated by neutron activation analysis and was found to contain titanium, aluminum, and vanadium. In 18 to 48 months of follow-up, the presence of the material did not appear to be associated with any problems. CONCLUSIONS: The presence of a black substance accumulating in the conjunctiva around some titanium coupling posts is uncommon and appears to be without any consequence in 18 to 48 months of follow-up. Our analysis revealed this substance to be consistent with titanium alloy (Ti-6Al-4V).
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".