MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2026631824 · doi:10.1097/opx.0b013e3181559ea4

Confocal Microscopy and Albumin Penetration into Contact Lenses

2007· article· en· W2026631824 on OpenAlexaff
Doerte Luensmann, Mary-Ann Glasier, Feng Zhang, Vladimir Bantseev, Trefford Simpson, Lyndon Jones

Bibliographic record

VenueOptometry and Vision Science · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOcular Surface and Contact Lens
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBovine serum albuminPenetration (warfare)ConfocalAdsorptionConfocal microscopyMatrix (chemical analysis)ChromatographySilicone hydrogelAlbuminProtein adsorptionChemistryMaterials scienceContact lensBiomedical engineeringBiochemistryOphthalmologyOpticsMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: To develop a novel in vitro method to detect the depth of penetration of the tear film protein albumin into contact lens materials using confocal laser scanning microscopy (CLSM). METHODS: A poly-HEMA-based hydrogel (etafilcon A) and a silicone hydrogel material (lotrafilcon B) were examined. In vitro, bovine serum albumin (BSA) was labeled with 5-(4,6-dichloro-s-triazin-2-ylamino) fluorescein hydrochloride (DTAF). The lenses were incubated in this protein solution (0.5 mg/ml) at 37 degrees C. After 1 and 7 days incubation, the lenses were examined using CLSM (Zeiss 510, config. META 18) and the location of the fluorescently labeled BSA was identified. RESULTS: BSA adsorption on the surface and penetration into the lens matrix occurred at a higher concentration for etafilcon compared to lotrafilcon (p < 0.001). For both materials, BSA was detected on the surface after 1 day of incubation. Significant levels of BSA were detected within the matrix of etafilcon after as little as 1 day (p < 0.001), but no BSA was detected in the matrix of lotrafilcon at any time (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: CLSM can be successfully used to examine the depth of penetration of fluorescently labeled proteins into various hydrogel polymers. Our results show that etafilcon lenses both adsorb BSA on the surface and absorb BSA within the matrix, whereas lotrafilcon B adsorbs small amounts of BSA on the surface only.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.419
Teacher spread0.408 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations35
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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