MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1971305273 · doi:10.1097/opx.0b013e31819fa239

Soft Contact Lens Disinfection Solution Efficacy: Clinical <i>Fusarium</i> Isolates vs. ATCC 36031

2009· article· en· W1971305273 on OpenAlexaff
Emma B.H. Hume, Judith Flanagan, Simin Masoudi, Hua Zhu, Nerida Cole

Bibliographic record

VenueOptometry and Vision Science · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOcular Infections and Treatments
Canadian institutionsKensington Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFusarium solaniContact lensMicrobiologyFusariumStrain (injury)MedicineFood scienceChemistryBiologyInternal medicineHorticultureOphthalmology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: To compare the disinfecting efficacy of five soft contact lens multipurpose disinfection solutions (MPDS) against Fusarium solani clinical isolates and the ISO standard ATCC 36031 strain. METHODS: Three commercially available and two recalled MPDS were tested using the ISO/CD 14,729 stand-alone test for contact lens care products against 10 ocular isolates of F. solani and the ATCC 36031 strain. The effect of filtering the fungal suspension before incubating in MPDS was also tested. An average log reduction in colony forming units at the manufacturer's minimum recommended disinfection time was determined and compared with criteria for stand-alone disinfection products for each MPDS against each strain. RESULTS: No difference between filtered and unfiltered fungal suspensions was observed for the ISO standard, whereas in one MPDS the representative clinical isolate showed significantly increased resistance when unfiltered. All but one solution met the stand-alone criteria of 1.0-log reduction of colony forming units against the recommended ISO standard strain ATCC 36031. However, there was wide variation in the ability of MPDS to meet the ISO disinfection criteria when tested against clinical isolates. Among the commercially available MPDS, the two polyquaternium-based solutions showed a higher disinfecting efficacy than the biguanide-based solution. The two recalled solutions showed a lower disinfecting efficacy than the polyquaternium-based solutions. Further, the clinical isolates were significantly more resistant to disinfection than was the recommended ISO strain. CONCLUSIONS: The effect of filtering the fungal suspension to remove hyphae seems to be relevant in the clinical isolate tested, but not in the ISO strain. Clinical isolates were significantly more resistant to disinfection than the recommended ISO strain in the presence of both the commercially available and the recalled MPDS. The use of clinical isolates in stand-alone disinfection testing is indicated. Because there were significant differences in increased resistance exhibited by clinical isolates and in a mixed (unfiltered) culture the use of a single laboratory strain may be insufficient to provide assurance that the disinfection solution will be effective against clinical isolates.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.447
Teacher spread0.423 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations28
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOptometry and Vision ScienceSame topicOcular Infections and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207