Diurnal Variation of Visual Function and the Signs and Symptoms of Dry Eye
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Subjects with dry eye often complain of disturbances in visual function and worsening of symptoms in the evening. To clinically substantiate these reports of diurnal variations, the present study tested subjects with dry eye on a series of visual function and ocular physiology measures. METHODS: Twenty-one subjects with dry eye were enrolled and underwent ophthalmic examinations, including best spectacle-corrected visual acuity, visual function decay as measured by the interblink interval visual acuity decay test without ocular anesthetic, reading rate test, slit-lamp biomicroscopy, and tear film breakup time. Keratitis, conjunctival redness, and corneal sensitivity were also assessed. Examinations occurred once during the morning and for a second time in the evening. Subjects also completed a modified version of the Ocular Surface Disease Index at both study visits. RESULTS: Subjects with dry eye showed impaired visual function in the evening, as compared to that in the morning; they maintained their best spectacle-corrected visual acuity for a shorter time between blinks (P < 0.01) and had longer readings times (P < 0.05) in the evening as compared with that in the morning. These findings were qualified by Ocular Surface Disease Index results showing greater subjective visual impairment in the evening. Subjects also demonstrated a significant increase in keratitis and conjunctival redness from morning to evening testing. Less ocular discomfort was reported in the evening than in the morning; this effect significantly correlated with corneal sensitivity in the evening. CONCLUSIONS: Subjects with dry eye experience significant diurnal variations of visual function and ocular surface physiology. These daily rhythms should be considered when designing clinical trials and when quantifying disease severity.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".