MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2005244966 · doi:10.1097/icl.0b013e3181f35d54

Corneal Staining as a Response to Contact Lens Wear

2010· review· en· W2005244966 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueEye & Contact Lens Science & Clinical Practice · 2010
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOcular Surface and Contact Lens
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStainingCorneaLens (geology)Contact lensOphthalmologyPositive stainingEffects of long-term contact lens wear on the corneaCorneal epitheliumMedicinePathologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To review the effects of contact lenses on the corneal surface. METHODS: A review of the literature and in-house research of corneal staining and its various forms of presentation. RESULTS: Corneal staining manifests in many different forms. The severity of staining or insult of the cornea is usually determined by the extent (area of coverage), density, and depth. The cause of staining is multifactorial, and its location is often linked to the type of lens that is being worn, the solution used to clean/disinfect the lens, the state of hydration of the soft lens, and the state of the cornea that has been affected by the lens. CONCLUSIONS: Sodium fluorescein dye effectively highlights corneal integrity changes referred to as corneal staining. This review describes the manifestations, the cause, the mechanisms, and the methods of remediation of corneal staining.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.026
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.123
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.975
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0260.123
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.009

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 head0.119
GPT teacher head0.483
Teacher spread0.365 · 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