A Forced Choice Comfort Study of Olopatadine Hydrochloride 0.1% versus Ketotifen Fumarate 0.05%
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the ocular comfort of two ophthalmic anti-allergic agents: olopatadine hydrochloride 0.1% and ketotifen fumarate 0.05%. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: In a double-masked, multi-centered, randomized trial, 80 subjects were asked to make a 'forced choice' based on ocular comfort between one drop of olopatadine hydrochloride 0.1% instilled in one eye and one drop of ketotifen fumarate 0.05% instilled in the contralateral eye. At one site, the incidence of adverse reactions was also reported. RESULTS: All subjects (100%) selected olopatadine as the more comfortable formulation. One site (n = 35) reported a 49% incidence of moderate burning and a 49% incidence of mild burning after ketotifen instillation. One subject (2% of population) at this site experienced no ocular discomfort with ketotifen. There were no reports of discomfort associated with olopatadine instillation. CONCLUSION: Olopatadine is a more comfortable ophthalmic preparation than ketotifen.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".