MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1995313059 · doi:10.1097/icl.0b013e31827d4f25

Uptake and Release Phenomena in Contact Lens Care by Silicone Hydrogel Lenses

2012· review· en· W1995313059 on OpenAlexaff
Lyndon Jones, Charles H. Powell

Bibliographic record

VenueEye & Contact Lens Science & Clinical Practice · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOcular Surface and Contact Lens
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContact lensSelf-healing hydrogelsLens (geology)Silicone hydrogelControlled releaseMaterials scienceSiliconeChemistryBiomedical engineeringNanotechnologyComposite materialOphthalmologyPolymer chemistryOpticsMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Contact lens solutions are highly complex mixtures of biocides (preservatives), surfactants, and other agents designed to disinfect, clean, and wet contact lenses. The commercialization of silicone hydrogel (SiHy) lenses has resulted in unique challenges to the manufacturers of contact lens solutions, because the properties of these materials differ markedly from those seen previously with poly-hydroxyethyl methacrylate-based hydrogels. Historically, hydrogel lens uptake and release of low-molecular weight preservatives such as chlorhexidine and thimerosal were known to result in allergic reactions, resulting in corneal irritation, stinging, conjunctival hyperemia, development of corneal infiltrates, palpebral lid changes, and corneal staining. However, little is known about the interaction of modern care systems with modern soft lens materials. Factors to be considered when evaluating the uptake and release of care components include the water content, charge, relative hydrophobicity, surface treatment, and porosity of the lens material, in conjunction with the concentration, charge/molecule, ionicity in the product matrix, molecular weight, and hydrophobicity of the care component in question. These factors control the sorption of the solution components by lenses, resulting in a variety of differences in the amount of the component taken up into the lens material and the amount and rate of subsequent release onto the ocular surface. Because both natural (ocular) and environmental biota become part of the solution-lens system during regimen use of any lens care product, these extraneously introduced substances should also be considered regarding their potential for uptake and either subsequent release onto the ocular surface or functioning as a scaffold for the adhesion of microbes. This article will review current knowledge concerning these interactions and investigate what clinically observable complications may arise from these interactions. It also reviews whether current methods to determine these interactions could be improved on.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.093
GPT teacher head0.420
Teacher spread0.327 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations64
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEye & Contact Lens Science & Clinical PracticeSame topicOcular Surface and Contact LensFrench-language works237,207