Kinetics of in Vitro Lactoferrin Deposition on Silicone Hydrogel and FDA Group II and Group IV Hydrogel Contact Lens Materials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to compare the kinetics of lactoferrin deposition on silicone hydrogel (SH) and conventional FDA group II and group IV hydrogel contact lens materials. Seven lens materials, two conventional (etafilcon A, FDA group IV; omafilcon A, FDA group II) and five SH (lotrafilcon A, lotrafilcon B, balafilcon A, galyfilcon A and senofilcon A), were incubated in 1 ml (125)I-labeled lactoferrin solution for time periods ranging from 1 h to 28 days. At the end of specified incubation periods radioactive counts were determined on the lenses using an Automatic Gamma Counter. There was a gradual increase in lactoferrin deposition on all the lenses across all time points. At the end of 28 days the amount of lactoferrin/lens in microg was 11.3 +/- 1.9 for etafilcon A, 6.8 +/- 2.0 for omafilcon A, 2.1 +/- 0.9 for lotrafilcon A, 3.1 +/- 1.0 for lotrafilcon B, 11.8 +/- 2.9 for balafilcon A, 5.4 +/- 1.1 for galyfilcon A and 5.6 +/- 0.6 for senofilcon A. After 28 days, etafilcon A and balafilcon A deposited lactoferrin to the greatest degree (P < 0.05), but these were not different from each other (P = 0.48), while lotrafilcon A and B deposited the least (P < 0.05 vs. other lenses; P = 0.57 with each other). Galyfilcon A, senofilcon A and omafilcon A (P < 0.05 compared with other lenses; P > 0.05 with each other) deposited intermediate levels of lactoferrin. We concluded that radiochemical analysis is a sensitive and effective technique to determine the small quantities of lactoferrin deposited on SH lenses. The kinetics of lactoferrin deposition on contact lens materials depend on the chemical structure of the lens material.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".