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

Silicone Allergies and the Eye

2013· review· en· W2092639486 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 · 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.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.031
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.988
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.031
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.002

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