Visual Performance of a Multifocal Contact Lens versus Monovision in Established Presbyopes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare subjective and objective visual performance of the Air Optix Aqua Multifocal lens to monovision in a group of subjects requiring a medium level of reading-addition power. METHODS: Fifty participants with reading additions between 1.25 and 2.00 diopters (inclusive) were randomized into a prospective, crossover clinical trial. They wore monovision and multifocals for 2 weeks in a randomized order. High- and low-contrast logMAR (logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution) acuity and stereopsis were measured at the beginning and end of each period. During each phase, participants performed specific tasks followed by subjective rating surveys and also completed satisfaction rating surveys on days 3, 7, and 12; all were transferred in real time using BlackBerry smartphones. A general rating survey was completed at the dispensing and 2-week visits. RESULTS: Forty-nine participants completed the study (mean age, 52 years). Distance and near high- and low-contrast acuities were significantly better (p < 0.05) with monovision at all visits. High-contrast intermediate acuity was only better (p < 0.05) with multifocals after 2 weeks. Stereopsis was equivalent after 2 weeks, but better (p < 0.05) with multifocals at dispensing. Subjective ratings were generally equivalent between modalities although there was a trend for multifocals to be rated higher for focus changing and driving, whereas monovision tended to be rated higher for near tasks. For both corrections, the satisfaction survey showed no significant change between days 3, 7, and 12, and the general survey showed that comfort was maintained but subjective vision ratings decreased significantly over the 2 weeks. Twenty-five participants (51%) preferred multifocals, 18 (37%) preferred monovision, and the remaining 6 (12%) declared both unacceptable. CONCLUSIONS: In this cohort, distance and near acuities were better with monovision, whereas the subjective ratings tended to favor the Air Optix Aqua Multifocal, with the exception of near performance. Preference was statistically similar between both corrections, with a trend toward preferring the multifocal.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".