MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Corneal Oxygen Deficiency

2005· review· en· W2090283911 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueEye & Contact Lens Science & Clinical Practice · 2005
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOcular Surface and Contact Lens
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSilicone hydrogelSiliconeSelf-healing hydrogelsOphthalmologyRefractive errorEffects of long-term contact lens wear on the corneaContact lensCorneal epitheliumCorneaMedicineOptometryMaterials scienceEye disease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: To compare the ocular effects of low Dk hydrogel and high Dk silicone hydrogel contact lenses. METHODS: A review of recent literature was conducted to determine the effects of wearing low and high Dk soft lenses on corneal swelling, vascular response, refractive error and the corneal epithelium. RESULTS: High Dk silicone hydrogel contact lenses became available for research and clinical practice almost 10 and 5 years ago respectively. During that time many studies have been conducted and it has been demonstrated repeatedly how much improvement there has been to the physiological response of the eye particularly when wearing the lenses on an overnight basis. CONCLUSIONS: Although silicone hydrogels only constitute about 2% of current wearers, their positive effects on the eye compared with low Dk hydrogel lenses should make them the most dominant lenses in the near future.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.993
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.007

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 head0.141
GPT teacher head0.480
Teacher spread0.339 · 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