Asymptomatic Corneal Staining Associated with the Use of Balafilcon Silicone-Hydrogel Contact Lenses Disinfected with a Polyaminopropyl Biguanide-Preserved Care Regimen
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare subjective symptoms and signs in a group of individuals who wear silicone-hydrogel lenses on a daily wear basis while they sequentially used two differing care regimens. METHODS: Fifty adapted soft-lens wearers were fitted with a silicone-hydrogel lens material (PureVision, Bausch & Lomb). The lenses were worn on a daily wear basis for two consecutive 1-month periods, during which the subjects used either a Polyquad (polyquaternium-1) -based system or a polyaminopropyl biguanide (PHMB) -based system, using a double-masked, randomized, crossover experimental design. RESULTS: Significant levels of relatively asymptomatic corneal staining were observed when subjects used the PHMB-based system, with 37% of subjects demonstrating a level of staining consistent with a classical solution-based toxicity reaction. Only 2% of the subjects exhibited such staining when using the Polyquad-based system. These results were significantly different (p < 0.001). Significant symptoms were not correlated with the degree of staining, with no differences in lens comfort or overall preference being reported between the regimens (p = NS). The only statistically significant difference in symptoms related to minor differences in stinging after lens insertion being reported, with the Polyquad-based system demonstrating less stinging (p < 0.008). CONCLUSIONS: Practitioners who fit silicone-hydrogel contact lenses on a daily wear basis should be wary of the potential for certain PHMB-containing multipurpose care systems to invoke corneal staining. Switching to non-PHMB based regimens will eliminate this complication in most instances.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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".