Performance of Lotrafilcon B Silicone Hydrogel Contact Lenses in Experienced Low-Dk/t Daily Lens Wearers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The silicone hydrogel lens O2OPTIX with a Dk/t of 138 (at -3.00 diopters [D]) was evaluated and compared with patients' habitual low-Dk/t lenses. METHODS: This large, multisite (United States and Canada), single-masked study enrolled experienced daily-wear, low-Dk/t, 2-week replacement soft contact lens wearers. Subjects underwent baseline evaluations and were fitted with O2OPTIX lenses for a 2-week period. After 2 weeks, subjects returned for assessment versus their habitual lenses. RESULTS: Data for 760 subjects were analyzed. The overall average habitual contact lens power was -3.13 D, and the average O2OPTIX lens power was -3.22 D. Biomicroscopy evaluations showed improvements in signs related to corneal health with O2OPTIX. Conjunctival and limbal redness, corneal neovascularization, corneal edema, and corneal and conjunctival staining all decreased significantly from baseline. O2OPTIX lenses performed better than habitual lenses in terms of comfort, symptoms, and overall preference. When wearing O2OPTIX lenses, significantly fewer subjects reported problems compared to their habitual lenses, including uncomfortable lens wear (-20.3%), redness (-44.5%), dryness during the day (-40.2%), and dryness at the end of the day (-34.4%); 47.9% reported that they could wear O2OPTIX lenses longer than their habitual lenses. At the end of study, among those with a preference, a significantly greater proportion of patients (60.3%) preferred O2OPTIX lenses to their habitual lenses. CONCLUSIONS: Daily wear of O2OPTIX lenses resulted in improvements in corneal signs of health and patient symptoms and provided excellent vision and comfort. O2OPTIX lenses were preferred by subjects over their habitual lenses.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".