Conjunctival and Corneal Hyperesthesia in Subjects with Dryness Symptoms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare conjunctival and corneal sensitivity in noncontact lens wearing subjects with and without symptoms of ocular dryness, stratified by age and gender. METHODS: Ninety-seven subjects were enrolled, 54 of whom were asymptomatic and 43 of whom were symptomatic of ocular dryness. A single score for the symptom of dryness was used to classify nondry eye (scores of none to trace) and dry eye symptomatic (scores of mild to severe) groups. The subjects were further stratified into "younger" (19 to 49 years) and "older" age groups (50 to 80 years). Conjunctival and corneal sensitivity of the right eye was measured at the central cornea and temporal conjunctiva, using a computer-controlled pneumatic esthesiometer with stimulus temperature set at 20 degrees C. The ascending method of limits was used to determine the thresholds. RESULTS: Conjunctival and corneal thresholds were significantly lower in the dry eye symptomatic than in the nondry eye group (both p < 0.01). The conjunctival threshold was lower than the corneal threshold in the dry eye symptomatic group (p < 0.01) but not in the nondry eye group (p > 0.05). Conjunctival threshold in the nondry eye women was lower than the men (p < 0.05). No difference between age groups was found for conjunctival and corneal thresholds in this study (all p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Conjunctival and corneal sensitivity to pneumatic cool stimulation is increased in subjects with symptoms of ocular dryness. This hyperesthesia seems to be more significant in the conjunctiva.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".