MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2092639486 · doi:10.1097/icl.0000000000000010

Silicone Allergies and the Eye

2013· review· en· W2092639486 on OpenAlexaff
Brad Hall, Lyndon Jones, Brian R. Dixon

Bibliographic record

VenueEye & Contact Lens Science & Clinical Practice · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOcular Surface and Contact Lens
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSilicone hydrogelSiliconeContact lensAllergyLens (geology)Immune reactionContact allergyAllergic reactionMedicineSilicone ElastomersImmune systemImmunologyMaterials scienceContact dermatitisOphthalmologyBiologyComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this manuscript was to review the evidence concerning the role of an allergic reaction to silicone as the basis for the reported increase in contact lens-associated infiltrates in wearers of silicone hydrogel contact lenses. METHODS: A literature review was undertaken to investigate the antigenic properties of silicone and the causes of contact lens-associated inflammatory reactions. RESULTS: Immune cells cannot interact with silicone directly but can interact with antigens on these lenses. These antigens could be due to tear film deposits, microbial contamination, or components of care systems used with these lenses. CONCLUSIONS: Inflammatory reactions associated with silicone hydrogel contact lens wear are not caused by an allergic reaction to silicone alone.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.104
GPT teacher head0.459
Teacher spread0.355 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations15
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEye & Contact Lens Science & Clinical PracticeSame topicOcular Surface and Contact LensFrench-language works237,207