Gas Permeable (GP) Versus Non‐GP Lens Wearers: Accuracy of Orthokeratology in Myopia Reduction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The primary objective of this study is to determine whether there are significant differences in visual and refractive outcomes between gas permeable (GP) and non-GP wearers following a 1-month period of overnight orthokeratology (OK). METHODS: The study included 14 subjects between the ages of 18 and 42 years. Group 1 consisted of six subjects wearing GP lenses for the correction of myopia for, at minimum, 1 year. Group 2 consisted of eight subjects wearing soft contact lenses or spectacles for the correction of myopia. All subjects were fit into the BE design in Boston XO material and lenses were worn for a period of 1 month. Unaided visual acuity using high (90%) and low (10%) contrast log MAR Bailey-Lovie vision charts, subjective refraction, corneal topography, and slit lamp evaluation were performed. Subjects were evaluated at day 1, 7, 14, 21, and 30. RESULTS: One eye of each subject was considered for analysis; the eye with the better response was chosen based on post-OK measures. The mean post-OK spherical equivalent was 0.29 +/- 0.55 D in the GP group and 0.37 +/- 0.46 D in the non-GP group; the difference was statistically significant (p = 0.03). Baseline astigmatism decreased in the non-GP group after OK while there was no significant change in the GP group. The mean high contrast acuities were 0.06 +/- 0.12 in the GP group and 0.17 +/- 0.07 in the non-GP group (p = 0.05), whereas the low contrast acuities were 0.18 +/- 0.17 in the GP and 0.02 +/- 0.09 in the non-GP group (p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Although the non-GP group has higher post-OK visual acuity and spherical equivalent statistically, the GP group has attained an average unaided acuity of >20/20 and residual myopia <0.5 D. Clinically, this shows that OK can be a promising technique in GP wearers.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".