MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Responses of Contact Lens Wearers to a Dry Eye Survey

2000· article· en· W2019068845 on OpenAlexaffabout
Carolyn G. Begley, Barbara Caffery, Kelly K. Nichols, Robin L. Chalmers

Bibliographic record

VenueOptometry and Vision Science · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOcular Surface and Contact Lens
Canadian institutionsStillwater (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContact lensMedicineDrynessEveningOptometryMorningDry eyesOphthalmologyLens (geology)Private practiceSurgeryFamily medicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this study was to examine ocular symptoms that have been associated with dry eye among contact lens wearers. A dry eye questionnaire was administered at random to 83 contact lens wearers at a private practice in Toronto, Ontario. On average, the most frequent ocular symptom among those queried was dryness and the least frequent was soreness. There was a significant shift (p < 0.0001; paired t-test) toward increased symptoms in the evening compared with the morning. Blurry, changeable vision was also a frequent and noticeable symptom. However, most subjects reported that their ocular symptoms were not severe enough for them to stop work or hobbies or to remove their contact lenses. Our results show that the symptoms of ocular dryness and discomfort are relatively common among contact lens wearers, and that they worsen toward the end of the day. These findings suggest that lens care practitioners should examine their patients who wear contact lenses toward the end of the day to best identify symptomatic patients.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.050

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.421
Teacher spread0.397 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations249
Published2000
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOptometry and Vision ScienceSame topicOcular Surface and Contact LensFrench-language works237,207