Kinetics of Lysozyme Activity Recovered from Conventional and Silicone Hydrogel Contact Lens Materials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We determined the activity of lysozyme recovered from various conventional and silicone hydrogel (SH) contact lens materials as a function of time, using an in vitro model. Polymacon, omafilcon, etafilcon, vifilcon, lotrafilcon A, lotrafilcon B, balafilcon A, galyfilcon A and senofilcon A contact lenses (n = 5) were incubated in lysozyme solution for time periods ranging from 1 h to 28 days. Following the specified incubation period, the lysozyme deposited on the lenses was extracted and the sample extracts were assessed for lysozyme activity and total lysozyme. We found no significant difference (NSD) between omafilcon and polymacon lens materials for the initial 3 days (P > 0.05); however, there was a significant difference between the two lenses from 5 to 28 days (P < 0.05). There was NSD (P > 0.05) between etafilcon and vifilcon lens materials at all time-points and significant differences were seen between various SH lens materials at different time points. After 28 days, lysozyme deposited on etafilcon (90 +/- 3%) and vifilcon (91.4 +/- 3%) exhibited the greatest activity. Lysozyme deposited on polymacon (17.8 +/- 4%), lotrafilcon A (23.4 +/- 4%) and lotrafilcon B (24 +/- 5%) exhibited the lowest activity. Lysozyme deposited on omafilcon, galyfilcon, senofilcon and balafilcon exhibited 38 +/- 3%, 62.3 +/- 8%, 47 +/- 6% and 61 +/- 7% of activity, respectively. The reduction in activity of lysozyme deposited on contact lens materials is time-dependent and the rate of reduction varies between lens materials. This variation in activity recovered from lenses could be due to the differences in surface/bulk material properties or the location of lysozyme on these 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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".