MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2075306843 · doi:10.1167/iovs.02-0731

Precorneal and Pre- and Postlens Tear Film Thickness Measured Indirectly with Optical Coherence Tomography

2003· article· en· W2075306843 on OpenAlexaff
Jianhua Wang, Desmond Fonn, Trefford Simpson, Lyndon Jones

Bibliographic record

VenueInvestigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOcular Surface and Contact Lens
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContact lensOptical coherence tomographyArtificial tearsLens (geology)OphthalmologyCorneaMaterials scienceScleral lensOpticsTearsBiomedical engineeringSurgeryMedicinePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: To demonstrate the feasibility of indirectly measuring the precorneal tear film thickness and pre- and postlens tear film (PLTF) thickness using optical coherence tomography (OCT). METHODS: Central corneal thickness (C(1)) which includes the tear film (T) of both eyes of 40 non-contact lens wearers was measured using OCT after calibration. The mean age of the 40 subjects was 31.2 +/- 9.3 years with a mean horizontal K-reading of 7.87 mm. Rigid contact lenses with base curves 0.3- to 0.5-mm steeper than the flattest K of the eye were fitted to measure real corneal thickness (C(2)), independently of the postlens tear film. T was calculated by T = C(1) - C(2). To measure pre- and postlens tear film thickness, Focus Night & Day and Acuvue lenses (Vistakon, Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, Jacksonville, FL) were fitted on both eyes. Central soft lens thickness (L(1)), which includes the prelens tear film (P), was measured by OCT in situ and in saline in a wet cell (L(2)). P was calculated by P = L(1) - L(2). Thickness of the central cornea plus the postlens tear film (C(3)) was measured during lens wearing. Postlens tear film (PLTF) was calculated by PLTF = C(3) - C(2). RESULTS. The mean +/- SD precorneal tear film thickness was 3.3 +/- 1.5 microm (range, 0-6.9) before lens insertion and 4.7 +/- 2.3 microm (range, 0.7-11.0) after lens fitting, which was significantly thicker (paired t-test: P < 0.01). The prelens tear film thickness was 3.9 +/- 2.6 and 3.6 +/- 2.1 microm (mean +/- SD; paired t-test: P = 0.52) and the postlens tear film thickness was 4.5 +/- 2.3 and 4.7 +/- 3.1 microm (paired t-test: P = 0.08) on and under Focus Night & Day and Acuvue lenses, respectively. Post hoc tests showed that precorneal (baseline) and prelens tear films were equivalent, and each was different (thinner; Tukey honestly significant difference P < 0.05) from the postlens tear film. CONCLUSIONS: OCT can noninvasively measure the thickness of the precorneal and prelens tear film as well as the postlens tear film. The thickness of the normal precorneal tear film is approximately 3 micro m and becomes thicker after lens fitting. The postlens tear film is thicker than the precorneal and prelens tear films with soft contact lenses. The thickness of both pre- and postlens tear films appears to be independent of the investigated lens types.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.274 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations211
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInvestigative Ophthalmology & Visual ScienceSame topicOcular Surface and Contact LensFrench-language works237,207