Effects of sterilization with hydrogen peroxide gas plasma, ethylene oxide, and steam on bioadhesive properties of nylon and polyethylene lines used for stabilization of canine stifle joints
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare effects of sterilization with hydrogen peroxide gas plasma (HPGP), ethylene oxide, and steam on bioadhesive properties of nylon and polyethylene lines used for stabilization of canine stifle joints. SAMPLE: Samples of a 36.3-kg test nylon leader line, 57.8-kg test nylon fishing line, and 2-mm ultrahigh-molecular weight polyethylene (UHMWPE) were used. PROCEDURES: In this in vitro study, samples of nylon leader line, fishing line, and UHMWPE sterilized by use of HPGP, ethylene oxide, and steam or unsterilized samples were used. Bacterial adherence on unsterilized and sterilized samples was tested with Staphylococcus epidermidis and Escherichia coli. Five samples were examined for each line type and sterilization condition, and final colony counts were obtained. RESULTS: Bacterial adherence was significantly affected by method of sterilization for all 3 line types. For most of the samples, bacterial adherence was similar or lower when HPGP sterilization was used, compared with results for sterilization via ethylene oxide and steam, respectively. Bacterial adherence was significantly higher for UHMWPE, compared with adherence for the nylon line, regardless of the sterilization method used. Bacterial adherence was higher for nylon fishing line than for nylon leader line for S epidermidis after ethylene oxide sterilization and for E coli after HPGP and ethylene oxide sterilization. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Effects of HPGP sterilization on bioadhesive properties of nylon and polyethylene lines compared favorably with those for ethylene oxide and steam sterilization. Also, nylon line may be a more suitable material than UHMWPE for suture prostheses on the basis of bacterial adherence properties.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".