Aceclidine, brimonidine tartrate, and dapiprazole: Comparison of miotic effect and tolerability under different lighting conditions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the effect of 3 types of topically applied miotic eyedrops on the pupil diameter in normal eyes. SETTING: Department of Neurosciences, Section of Ophthalmology, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy. METHODS: This prospective study comprised 60 eyes of 30 healthy volunteers treated with aceclidine 0.02%, brimonidine tartrate 0.20%, and dapiprazole 0.25%. Pupil diameter was measured under scotopic, mesopic (4 lux), and photopic (50 lux) conditions using an infrared pupillometer incorporated into a CSO topographer. The first measurement was obtained before single instillation of 1 type of miotic eyedrop. Subsequent measurements were taken after 30, 120, and 240 minutes. Each additional medication was tested after an interval of at least 6 weeks to avoid possible effects from the previously administered drug. All patients received a questionnaire and were asked to grade the tolerability of each eyedrop using a subjective scoring system. RESULTS: Aceclidine 0.02% had no significant miotic effect. Brimonidine tartrate 0.20% caused significant miosis within 30 minutes and 120 minutes; after 240 minutes, the effect under all luminance conditions decreased to baseline levels without reaching the initial level. Dapiprazole 0.25% had a miotic effect similar to that of brimonidine but produced many side effects including hyperemia and burning, which many patients said caused significant discomfort. CONCLUSIONS: Brimonidine tartrate 0.20% had the best miotic effect of the 3 agents tested and was well tolerated by the patients. The reproducible miotic effect of brimonidine tartrate under all lighting conditions might benefit postoperative refractive patients who report night-vision difficulties related to large pupils.
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) | 0.001 | 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".