MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2060863087 · doi:10.1097/opx.0b013e3181ff9d39

In Vitro Analysis of the Physical Properties of Contact Lens Blister Pack Solutions

2010· article· en· W2060863087 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueOptometry and Vision Science · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOcular Surface and Contact Lens
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersCanadian Optometric Education Trust Fund
KeywordsSilicone hydrogelArtificial tearsSalineWettingSelf-healing hydrogelsViscosityContact lensLens (geology)ChemistryMaterials scienceBiomedical engineeringChromatographyOphthalmologyPolymer chemistryOpticsComposite materialMedicinePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: Since the initial development of silicone hydrogels, many modifications to the bulk and surface properties of the lenses have been undertaken to improve the wettability and comfort of the lenses. Recently, manufacturers have incorporated various "wetting agents" or surface-active agents into the blister packaging solutions (BPSs) of the lenses to improve initial comfort of the lens on eye. The purpose of this study was to measure and compare the pH, surface tension (ST), viscosity, and osmolality of BPSs for a variety of silicone hydrogel and polyHEMA-based hydrogel lenses. In addition, two saline solutions were tested for comparison purposes. METHODS: The pH, osmolality, ST, and viscosity were measured for the BPSs for lotrafilcon B and lotrafilcon A and lotrafilcon B with a "modified BPS" (m-lotrafilcon A, m-lotrafilcon B) (CIBA Vision, Duluth, GA); balafilcon A (Bausch & Lomb, Rochester, NY); galyfilcon A, senofilcon A, and narafilcon A (Johnson & Johnson, Jacksonville, FL); and comfilcon A and enfilcon A (CooperVision, Pleasanton, CA) and BPSs from two conventional polyHEMA-based materials-etafilcon A (Johnson & Johnson) and omafilcon A (CooperVision). The two saline solutions tested were Unisol (Alcon, Fort Worth, TX) and Softwear Saline (CIBA Vision). RESULTS: The pH results for the two saline solutions and all BPSs remained in the pH range of tears (6.6-7.8). The ST of the modified BPS was significantly lower (p < 0.01) than the original non-modified BPS. Viscosity measurements ranged between 0.90 and 1.00 cP for all BPSs and saline solutions, except for the modified BPS, which had significantly higher viscosities (p < 0.001). Osmolality measurements were not significantly different (p > 0.05) between BPSs made by the same manufacturer but were significantly different compared with BPSs made by different manufacturers (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The incorporation of wetting agents and surfactants into BPSs does alter the physical properties of the BPSs, which may have clinical implications regarding initial in-eye comfort.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.490
Threshold uncertainty score0.160

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.374
Teacher spread0.350 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it