Corneal Staining and Cell Shedding during the Development of Solution‐Induced Corneal Staining
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This non-dispensing cross-over study was conducted to determine if lenses presoaked in Opti-Free RepleniSH (OFR) or ReNu MultiPlus (RMP) cause solution-induced corneal staining (SICS) and subsequent cell sloughing before the typical 2 h in vivo examination point. METHODS.: Study lenses (PureVision) were worn bilaterally by 13 participants for periods of 15, 30, 60, and 120 min using two different contralateral care regimen pairings. The lens worn on the test eye was soaked overnight in either OFR or RMP and the control eye in Clear Care (CC). After lens removal, corneal staining was rated on a scale of 0 (negligible) to 100 (severe) for four peripheral quadrants and the central region, and the differential global staining score was calculated by subtracting baseline staining scores. Following the staining assessment, corneal cells were collected from the ocular surface using a non-contact irrigation system to determine ocular cell shedding rates. RESULTS: Differential global staining score with OFR was greater than CC with the differences being statistically significant at 30 and 60 min (p < 0.01). Maximum staining with RMP was significantly greater than OFR and peaked after 60 and 120 min of lens wear (p < 0.01). On average, 710 ± 470 ocular cells were collected after lens wear, with similar shedding seen independent of solution or lens wear duration (p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: SICS occurred earlier but to a significantly lower degree when PureVision lenses were presoaked in OFR compared with RMP, while lenses presoaked in CC did not cause SICS. Ocular surface cell shedding after lens removal was not impacted by lens wear durations of ≤2 h.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".