Comfort and Adaptation to Silicone Hydrogel Lenses for Daily Wear
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To investigate initial comfort and adaptation of currently successful low oxygen transmissibility soft lens wearers refitted with silicone hydrogel (SH) lenses for daily wear. METHODS: Fifty-five subjects were enrolled in a subject-masked 5-month clinical trial in which they wore 5 SH lenses in a randomized, crossover design. Comfort, burning, and dryness were rated on scales of 0 to 100 immediately on insertion and the time for lens settling was recorded. Symptoms were then rated at various times, using BlackBerry wireless communication devices (Research in Motion, Waterloo, Canada), during the day for 2 cycles of 2 weeks wear for each lens type. RESULTS: Comfort immediately on insertion varied between lens types (P=0.002). All lens types were reported by the subjects to have settled within 30 to 45 sec of insertion (P=0.14) and "settled" comfort was greater than comfort immediately on insertion (P<0.001). Comfort within the first hour of wear also varied between lens types (P=0.02). Comfort during the day decreased significantly for all lenses (P=0.001), but there was no difference between lenses (P=0.19) and no effect of lens age (P=0.15). The wearing times were greater with the SH lenses than the habitual lenses worn before study commencement (P=0.001). Overall performance of the lenses after 4 weeks was high, with no difference between lenses (P=0.45). CONCLUSIONS: Initial comfort and adaptation to all SH lenses were good and no differences in the overall ratings were found between the 5 SH lenses investigated. Decreased comfort was noted later in the day with all lens types, but longer wearing times were reported with the SH lenses than previous hydroxyethyl methacrylate-based lenses.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".