Overwear of Contact Lenses: Increased Severity of Clinical Signs as a Function of Protein Adsorption
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study compared the clinical behavior of disposable and frequent replacement Acuvue and 1-Day contact lenses. Each type of lens was worn on one eye according to the schedule recommended by the manufacturer, and on the other eye for a longer period of time, up to 30 days in length. Both type of lenses were prescribed on a daily-wear basis. The amount of protein collected from the lenses was measured using two spectrophotometric protein assays. Visual acuity and comfort, along with several other clinical signs, were classified according to Cornea and Contact Lens Research Unit (CCLRU) scales, and possible associations between each of these signs and the amount of protein extracted from the lenses was tested. A comparison between the lens worn on the compliant eye with the lens worn on the noncompliant eye allowed us to measure the impact of overwear on ocular health and subjective clinical findings. After four months of study, the overwear of Acuvue and 1-Day lenses significantly increased the amount of protein bound on the contact lenses, as well as the severity of upper conjunctival papillae, upper lid conjunctival hyperemia, and limbal congestion. Even if reduced values for visual acuity and noninvasive break-up time (NIBUT) were identified, these variations were not found to be statistically significant. The clinical implications of this study would allow a practitioner to identify, according to the variations in several clinical signs, a patient who overwears contact lenses, so that action may be taken to reduce possible deleterious effects on ocular health.
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 | 0.001 | 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".