In Vitro Contact Angle Analysis and Physical Properties of Blister Pack Solutions of Daily Disposable Contact Lenses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to measure the advancing and receding contact angles (CAs) of five daily disposable (DD) lenses and the osmolality, surface tension (ST), and pH of each blister pack solution. METHODS: The advancing and receding CAs were measured directly out of the blister pack for five DD lenses: omafilcon A (CooperVision), nelfilcon A (CIBA Vision), modified nelfilcon A (CIBA Vision), etafilcon A (Johnson & Johnson), and narafilcon A (Johnson & Johnson). Advancing CAs were measured using sessile drop and Wilhelmy balance methods. Receding CAs were measured using the Wilhelmy balance method. ST, pH, and osmolality were measured for each blister pack solution from all the DD lenses. RESULTS: The advancing CAs for the nelfilcon A lenses were statistically lower (P<0.05) than the advancing CAs of the other three lenses. The receding CAs for etafilcon A were statistically lower (P<0.05) than the receding CAs for the other four lenses. The pH of all the blister pack solutions was relatively neutral (7.01-7.43). The ST of the blister pack solution for the modified nelfilcon A was significantly lower (P<0.05) than the ST of all other blister pack solutions. The osmolality of the blister pack solutions for the etafilcon A and narafilcon A lenses were significantly higher (P<0.05) than the other blister pack solutions. CONCLUSIONS: The modified nelfilcon A lens had low advancing CAs and low receding CAs showing minimal hysteresis. The blister pack solution for the modified nelfilcon A lens had the lowest ST, a low osmolality, and a neutral pH.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".