MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2102356853 · doi:10.3109/01676830.2011.648800

The Use of Mersilene Mesh for Wrapping of Hydroxyapatite Orbital Implants: Mid-Term Result

2012· article· en· W2102356853 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueOrbit · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicOcular Disorders and Treatments
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEnucleationImplantSurgeryDentistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: To report the results of Mersilene mesh wrapped hydroxyapatite orbital implantation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Records of 63 patients operated between April 2002 and March 2006 were retrospectively reviewed. Parameters studied included sex, cause of enucleation, length of follow-up after operation, implant exposure, secondary implantation, and surgeon experience. Student's t-test and χ(2) were used for comparison group having implant exposure and those without implant exposure. RESULTS: The rate of exposure with use of Mersilene mesh was found to be 4.7%. Gender and cause of enucleation did not influence incidence of implant exposure in this study. The surgeon related factor, reported in terms of oculoplasty surgeon and non-oculoplasty surgeon, was a statistically significant factors that affected implant exposure. CONCLUSION: Mersilene showed favorable results in wrapping of hydroxyapatite orbital implants.

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.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.058
Threshold uncertainty score0.267

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.235 · 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