Clinical performance of a peroxide-based care system and a multi-purpose care system formulated for use with silicone hydrogels
Bibliographic record
Abstract
of lens type. As clinical variables and subjective ratings do not always manifest what patients actually experience, CWT may prove to be a better assessment of lens performance and long term predictor of success. Slightly better graded wettability and fewer visible deposits seen on OA with RepleniSH were not associated with a longer CWT or better ratings, suggesting that these investigator assessed measures do not predict comfort. With the exception of one subject exhibiting corneal staining which was consistent with a solution sensitivity (with RepleniSH), both Clear Care and RepleniSH were compatible with the SH lens materials used in this study. Results from the preference and exit questionnaires suggest that a peroxidebased care system is a viable first choice lens care option for SH lenses. Clinical performance of a peroxide-based care system and a multipurpose care system formulated for use with silicone hydrogels N Keir, S Schneider, K Dumbleton, CA Woods, Y Feng Centre for Contact Lens Research, School of Optometry, University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".