MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2083846465 · doi:10.1016/s0886-3350(03)00230-x

Effect of contact lens wear on central corneal thickness measurements

2003· article· en· W2083846465 on OpenAlexaffabout
Dennis Braun, Ellen E. Anderson Penno

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cataract & Refractive Surgery · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOcular Surface and Contact Lens
Canadian institutionsGimbel Eye Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContact lensOphthalmologyLens (geology)CorneaMedicineMaterials sciencePopulationOptometryOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: To compare central corneal thickness measurements as a function of contact lens wear in patients presenting for refractive surgery. SETTING: Gimbel Eye Centre, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada. METHODS: A retrospective study of charts yielded 634 eyes meeting the inclusion criterion. Pachymetry measurements of spectacle-wearing control eyes were compared to those of full-time soft contact lens wearers and rigid gas-permeable contact lens wearers. All measurements were taken with the DGH ultrasonic pachymeter by a single observer. RESULTS: Soft contact lens wearers had a mean reduction in corneal thickness measurements of 22 micrometers compared to the control population (P =.00001). Rigid gas-permeable lens wearers had a reduction of 24 micrometers compared to the control population (P =.00001). CONCLUSION: There was a clinically significant reduction in corneal thickness measurements associated with full-time contact lens wear.

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)0.006
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.261 · 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

Citations37
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Cataract & Refractive SurgerySame topicOcular Surface and Contact LensFrench-language works237,207