Lamination for subdermal implant fixation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Thirty-six aluminum oxide laminated discs were implanted into 12 young rabbits (18 with a 0.5-mm porous layer and 18 with 1 mm) to determine whether implants that are porous only on one side could fixate to subcutaneous tissue. After 3 months, discs were encased within thin pouches (0.02-0.14 mm) of fibrous connective tissue, as would have been expected of a completely porous implant. Solid sides showed no, while the porous sides showed little, attachment to pouches. Forty-seven percentage (17) of the discs had moved 1.4 +/- 0.8 cm beyond the 4.7 + 1 cm they had moved due to normal skin growth, while two others had moved between 6.2 and 6.5 cm beyond this measure. The proportion of 1 mm porous layer discs migrating within subcutaneous tissue was no greater than the proportion of 0.5 mm layer discs migrating (p = 0.15). Porous layer height and disc migration did not affect the attachment strength of pouch to surrounding tissues (68 +/- 23 N, p = 0.34). Pouch thickness, which has been associated to the level of applied forces in other studies, increased with migration distance (p = 0.054). Results indicate that one-sided porous discs are likely easier to retrieve than completely porous ones, but cannot be prevented from migrating in loose tissue of young animals. Data is being used to design subdermal radio frequency devices for endangered marine animals.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.003 | 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".