Hemocompatibility, biocompatibility, inflammatory and <i>in vivo</i> studies of primary reference materials low‐density polyethylene and polydimethylsiloxane: A review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 1984, low-density polyethylene (LDPE) and polymethylsiloxane (PDMS), two primary reference materials (PRM), were made available by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) as discriminatory tools for the validation of standardized and novel in vitro and in vivo tests in the evaluation of biomaterials. This article reviews the results and conclusions obtained by several studies investigating the hemocompatibility, in vitro biocompatibility, inflammatory response, and in vivo tissue reactions of these two reference materials. Variable results obtained with LDPE and PDMS in ex vivo hemocompatibility studies were attributed to the type of animal model used, the flow velocity of the circulating blood, the time of exposure, and the methodology used to measure blood cell adhesion or activation at the surface of the materials. In contrast, both the LDPE and PDMS appeared to be suitable reference materials when used in in vitro biocompatibility, inflammatory response, and in vivo studies. However, caution must be taken when interpreting the results, because gamma sterilization of these two materials as well as their origin (for example PDMS) are two critically important factors. In conclusion, we see a definite need for standardized hemocompatible parameters and better high-quality hemocompatibility studies on PRM. This review also suggests other materials as potential PRM candidates, namely, Biomer and Intramedic polyethylene.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".