MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1971502312 · doi:10.1097/opx.0b013e318288afcb

Compliance with Lens Replacement and the Interval between Eye Examinations

2013· article· en· W1971502312 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueOptometry and Vision Science · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOcular Surface and Contact Lens
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersAlcon Foundation
KeywordsMedicineEye careContact lensLens (geology)OptometrySilicone hydrogelPurchasingCompliance (psychology)OphthalmologyPatient complianceFamily medicinePsychologyOperations managementEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: Eye care practitioners (ECPs) acknowledge that their patients do not always follow recommendations for lens replacement, but many may not realize the possible implications for their offices. The study was conducted to investigate whether there is a relationship between contact lens compliance and the interval between full eye examinations (IEE). METHODS: The study was conducted in ECP offices in the United States. Eye care practitioners and patients independently completed linked questionnaires, evaluating their contact lens wear and care. Patients were required to be current wearers of daily disposable (DD) lenses or reusable silicone hydrogel lenses with a manufacturer-recommended replacement frequency (MRRF) of 2 weeks (2WR) or 1 month (1MR). RESULTS: A total of 2147 questionnaires from 141 offices were eligible. Fifty-four percent of patients were wearing 2WR, 37% 1MR, and 9% DD lenses. Wearers of 2WR lenses were significantly less compliant with replacement than wearers of both DD and 1MR lenses (34% vs. 74% and 67%, both p < 0.001); patients purchasing an annual supply were more compliant (55% vs. 45%, p < 0.001). The mean IEE was 16 months and was longer for wearers who were noncompliant with the MRRF (17.4 months vs. 14.5 months, p < 0.001). Other factors affecting IEE were household income (p = 0.030), insurance (p < 0.001), purchase source (p < 0.001), and sex (p = 0.007). CONCLUSIONS: Patients who were not compliant with the MRRF had longer IEEs and were less likely to purchase an annual supply of lenses. Patients who purchased lenses from their ECP, had a higher household income, had eye examination insurance, and were female had shorter IEEs. Patients failing to replace their lenses when scheduled were also found to be less compliant with lens care procedures. Eye care practitioners should reinforce the importance of all aspects of lens wear and care with their patients, with the overall aim of reducing possible complications and retaining successful contact lens wearers in their offices.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.273

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.401
Teacher spread0.372 · 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