Successful Monovision Contact Lens Wearers Refitted With Bifocal Contact Lenses
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.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".