Impact of Hydroxychloroquine-Loaded Polyurethane Intravaginal Rings on Lactobacilli
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The use of polymeric devices for controlled sustained delivery of drugs is a promising approach for the prevention of HIV-1 infection. Unfortunately, certain microbicides, when topically applied vaginally, may be cytotoxic to vaginal epithelial cells and the protective microflora present within the female genital tract. In this study, we evaluated the impact of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ)-loaded, reservoir-type, polyurethane intravaginal rings (IVRs) on the growth of Lactobacillus crispatus and Lactobacillus jensenii and on the viability of vaginal and ectocervical epithelial cells. The IVRs were fabricated using hot-melt injection molding and were capable of providing controlled release of HCQ for 24 days, with mean daily release rates of 17.01 ± 3.6 μg/ml in sodium acetate buffer (pH 4) and 29.45 ± 4.84 μg/ml in MRS broth (pH 6.2). Drug-free IVRs and the released HCQ had no significant effects on bacterial growth or the viability of vaginal or ectocervical epithelial cells. Furthermore, there was no significant impact on the integrity of vaginal epithelial cell monolayers, in comparison with controls, as measured by transepithelial electrical resistance. Overall, this is the first study to evaluate the effects of HCQ-loaded IVRs on the growth of vaginal flora and the integrity of vaginal epithelial cell monolayers.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".