Impact of Multipurpose Solutions Released from Contact Lenses on Corneal Cells
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To assess, in vitro, the effect of the release of contact lens multipurpose solutions (MPS) from two silicone hydrogel lenses on human corneal epithelial cells. METHODS: A monolayer of immortalized human corneal epithelial cells was seeded in a 24-well plate in keratinocyte serum-free medium. Lotrafilcon A (LA) and balafilcon A (BA) lenses were placed on top of the adherent cells for 8 and 24 h, after being soaked in MPS, borate-buffered (Unisol) or phosphate-buffered saline overnight. Cells were assayed for viability using the 3-(4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-2,5-diphenyltetrazolium bromide assay or for α3, β1, and β4 integrin expression and caspase activation by flow cytometry. RESULTS: After 8 h, LA lenses soaked in Unisol, Opti-Free Express (OFX), and ReNu MultiPlus (ReNu) showed decrease in cell viability. LA and BA soaked in Complete Moisture Plus (Complete) had similar viability at around 85% of control. After 24 h, a further decrease in viability was observed with all MPS-soaked lenses; LA soaked in OFX significantly reduced viability compared with Unisol-soaked lenses. In addition, reduced levels of integrin expression for lenses soaked in OFX and ReNu, and for BA soaked in Complete were observed. At 24 h, only LA soaked in OFX led to an increase in caspase activation. CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate an increase in cytotoxicity with borate-based MPS solutions in vitro when compared with both phosphate-buffered saline and borate-exposed lenses, suggesting that biocides and/or additives play a role in the observed cell reaction. Moreover, the mechanism of in vitro solution-induced toxicity appeared to be mediated by lens type, suggesting differences in the preferential adsorption/release profile of certain compounds.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".