An in Vivo Comparison of the Kinetics of Protein and Lipid Deposition on Group II and Group IV Frequent-Replacement Contact Lenses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To investigate the degree and rate of deposition of protein and lipid on FDA group II and group IV contact lens materials over a period of up to 28 days of wear. METHODS: Twenty-two subjects wore a group IV lens (Acuvue) and a group II lens (Soflens 66) in a randomized, cross-over study. The lenses were randomly worn for periods between 1 and 28 days and then collected for laboratory-based deposition analysis. RESULTS: The group II lenses revealed an increased degree of lipoidal spoilage (p < 0.0001) and the group IV lenses exhibited increased protein spoilage (p < 0.0001). Surface protein for both materials reached a maximum after 1 day and did not increase over the 4-week wearing period (p = NS). Total protein for group IV lenses reached a maximum between 1 and 7 days and then reached a plateau, with no further increase occurring (p = NS), whereas total protein accumulation on the group II lens continued to increase across all time periods (p < 0.05). Lipid deposition on the group IV lens was maximal after 1 day and increased no further (p = NS), whereas lipid deposition on the group II material monotonously increased and progressively built-up over the 4 weeks of wear (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: The kinetics of contact lens deposition is mediated by the chemical structure of the contact lens material under consideration. Protein deposition occurs rapidly with group IV materials before reaching a maximum, whereas N-vinyl pyrrolidone-containing group II materials progressively accumulate protein and lipid deposits, with no plateau occurring.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".