The ocular response to extended wear of a high Dk silicone hydrogel contact lens
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: A four-month extended wear clinical trial was conducted to compare the ocular effects of a high Dk Balafilcon A silicone hydrogel lens and a low Dk HEMA 38.6 per cent H20 soft lens. METHOD: Twenty-four subjects who were adapted to daily wear of soft lenses wore a high Dk lens in one eye and a low Dk HEMA lens in the other eye for four months on an extended wear basis after one week of daily wear. Thirteen progress evaluations were conducted using standard clinical procedures. RESULTS: Eighteen subjects (75 per cent) completed the study. The high Dk lens induced significantly less bulbar and limbal injection and corneal vascularisation than the low Dk HEMA lens (p < 0.05). Epithelial microcysts were observed only in the eyes wearing the low Dk lens. A significant increase in myopia was found in the eyes wearing the low Dk HEMA lens (mean = 0.50 D, p < 0.01) compared to the insignificant myopic increase of 0.06 D in the eyes wearing the high Dk lens. Three subjects developed small infiltrates in the high Dk lens wearing eyes and significantly more post-lens debris was observed under the high Dk lens. Six subjects developed papillary conjunctivitis in the eye wearing silicone hydrogel lenses but only two of those were discontinued from the study. CONCLUSION: No hypoxia-related effects were observed with extended wear of the high Dk Balafilcon A silicone hydrogel lens.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 it