Successful Monovision Contact Lens Wearers Refitted With Bifocal 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
PURPOSE: Should successful monovision contact lens wearers be refitted with bifocal lenses? METHODS: Fifty current monovision lens wearers were fitted with ACUVUE Bifocal contact lenses (Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, Jacksonville, FL). Visual function and subjective vision ratings were assessed with habitual monovision lenses at the first visit and then were repeated at the end of 6 months while wearing bifocal lenses. Lens preference was determined at the end of the 6-month study, and the subjects were called 1 year later to repeat the lens preference questionnaire. RESULTS: Forty (80%) subjects completed the 6-month study; nine discontinued for visual reasons. At the end of 6 months of wear, 68% preferred bifocal lenses and 25% preferred monovision. Of the subjects who were contacted a year later, 53% were still wearing bifocal lenses. High-contrast visual acuity and letter contrast sensitivity at distance was the same for monovision and bifocal lenses, but low-contrast acuity was better with monovision. Intermediate low- and high-contrast acuity and 3-meter and near stereoscopic acuity were better with bifocal lenses. Near high- and low-contrast acuity were better with monovision. All subjective ratings, except near vision in poor lighting, were significantly greater with bifocal lenses. CONCLUSIONS: It is possible to refit successful monovision lens wearers with simultaneous vision bifocal lenses, and these lenses should be considered as an alternative method for the correction of presbyopia. In addition, subjective responses to bifocal lenses may not be reflective of visual function measurements.
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 | 0.007 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 it