Photocrosslinkable hyaluronic acid as an internal wetting agent in model conventional and silicone hydrogel contact lenses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Photocrosslinkable methacrylated hyaluronic acid (HA) was prepared and incorporated into model conventional and silicone hydrogel contact lenses as an internal wetting agent. The molecular weight of the HA, the degree of methacrylation as well as the amount (0.25 to 1.0 wt %) incorporated were varied. The HA-containing hydrogels were analyzed using a variety of techniques including water contact angles, equilibrium water content (EWC), and lysozyme sorption. The presence of HA could be detected in the materials using X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy and Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy-attenuated total reflectance. The materials containing methacrylated HA had improved hydrophilicity and reduced lysozyme sorption. Effects of modified HA on EWC were dependent upon the materials but generally increased water uptake. Increased mobility of the HA associated with a lower molecular weight and lower degree of methacrylation was found to be more effective in improving hydrophilicity and decreasing lysozyme sorption than the less mobile HA. All results found suggest that photocrosslinkable HA has significant potential in contact lens applications.
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) | 0.000 | 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 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".