Sterilization by gamma radiation of antibiotic impregnated polymethylmethacrylate and plaster of Paris beads
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Ethylene oxide is currently recommended for sterilization of antibiotic impregnated beads; however this method carries health risks to personnel and is becoming less available. OBJECTIVE: To perform a pilot study of the effect of radiation for sterilization of polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) and plaster of Paris (POP) beads impregnated with amikacin, enrofloxacin, and ceftiofur. HYPOTHESIS: Radiation would effectively sterilize the beads without affecting the efficacy of the antibiotic. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Beads of PMMA and POP were prepared in a clean but non-sterile manner with one of the three antibiotics (amikacin, enrofloxacin, ceftiofur) or no antibiotic. Beads were then exposed to radiation for a total dose of 0 kiloGray (kGy), 10 kGy and 25 kGy. Beads were incubated on Mueller-Hinton agar plates seeded with Escherichia coli, Staphylococcus aureus or Pseudomonas aeruginosa for 24 hours or cultured in brain-heart infusion broth for 48 hours. Zones of inhibition were measured on the agar plates and statistics were performed on the diameters of the zones of inhibition using an analysis of variance. RESULTS: There were no differences in the diameters of inhibition for all levels of radiation for all PMMA beads. The same was true with POP beads with the exception of enrofloxacin which had a significantly decreased zone of inhibition with increased levels of radiation, though the clinical significance of this finding was not assessed. Only beads without antibiotics and not exposed to radiation had bacterial growth. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Radiation may be an effective method of sterilization for antibiotic impregnated beads.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".