Biocompatibility and Light Transmission of Liposomal Lenses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To validate the biocompatibility and transmittance properties of contact lenses bearing intact liposomes. These liposomal lenses loaded with therapeutics can be used as ophthalmic drug delivery systems. METHODS: The biocompatibility of soft contact lenses, coated with liposomes was evaluated through in vitro direct and indirect cytocompatibility assays on human corneal epithelial cells, on reconstructed human corneas and on ex vivo rabbit corneas. The direct and indirect transmission spectra of liposome-covered lenses were also evaluated to test if they transmit all wavelengths of the ultraviolet-visible spectrum, to thereby fulfill their optical function, without gross alteration of the colors perception and with a minimum of light dispersion. RESULTS: Contact lenses bearing layers of stable liposomes did not induce any significant changes in cell viability and in cell growth, compared with lenses bearing no liposome. Elution assays revealed that no cytotoxic compound leaks from the lenses whether bearing liposomes or not. Histological analyses of reconstructed human corneas and ex vivo rabbit corneas directly exposed to liposomal lenses revealed neither alteration to the cell nor to the tissue structures. Contact lenses bearing layers of liposomes did not significantly affect light transmission compared with control lenses without liposome at the wavelength of maximal photopic sensitivity, i.e., 550 nm. In addition, the contact lenses afford more eye protection in the ultraviolet spectrum, compared with the control lenses. CONCLUSIONS: Liposomal contact lenses are biocompatible and their transmittance properties are not affected in the visible light range.
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) | 0.000 | 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".