The effect of UV‐blocking contact lenses as a therapy for canine chronic superficial keratitis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of UV-blocking soft contact lenses in treatment for chronic superficial keratitus (CSK). METHODS: Twenty six dogs with CSK were treated continuously with UV-blocking contact lenses for 6 months. A contact lens was placed on one eye of each dog; the other eye remained without a lens as a control eye. After this primary study, five of the dogs were further treated and they wore then contact lenses in both eyes. Continuously, all patients were concurrently treated topically with cyclosporine. The contact lenses were changed every 4 weeks and an ophthalmic examination performed. Evaluation criteria included corneal alterations as pigmentation, edema, pannus and vascularization. To determine the transmittance characteristics of the contact lenses before and after use, 32 contact lenses were measured with a UV-vis-NIR spectrophotometer. RESULTS: Pigmentation increased in eyes wearing lenses and in control eyes over the evaluation period of 6 months. Corneal edema increased in the eyes wearing lenses, but remained unaffected in the control eyes. A significant difference in the incidence of pannus and the extent of corneal vascularisation could not be evaluated. Adverse effects were noted in six cases (corneal edema and vascularisation, conjunctivitis, blepharospasm). All new lenses studied reduced UV-radiation to a safe level, whereas used lenses did not maintain their transmittance characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: No positive effect of UV-blocking contact lenses could be proven with the study design used.
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".