In Vitro Contact Angle Analysis and Physical Properties of Blister Pack Solutions of Daily Disposable Contact Lenses
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.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it