The Effects of Six Months of Contact Lens Wear on the Tear Film, Ocular Surfaces, and Symptoms of Presbyopes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To assess the tear film, ocular surfaces, and symptoms of ocular discomfort in a presbyopic population before and after contact lens wear. METHODS: A total of 150 presbyopes (49% were previous soft contact lens wearers) participated in a clinical trial in which they wore either monovision (single vision Acuvue lenses) or Acuvue Bifocal contact lenses. Clinical measurements of tear film, biomicroscopy, and corneal sensitivity as well as subjective ratings using the Dry Eye Questionnaire were collected at the initial visit and repeated after 6 months. Comparisons were made between age groups (40 to 51 years and 52 to 71 years) and genders before and after contact lens wear. Associations between objective and subjective tests were sought. RESULTS: After 6 months of contact lens wear, clinical signs had worsened by less than one-half of a grade, and tear break up time (TBUT) worsened by 3 s. Only TBUT was lower for the older age group. Females had less bulbar hyperemia, more sensitive eyes, more lissamine green staining, and lower TBUT and phenol red thread measurements (all p < 0.04). Twenty-eight percent experienced dryness before contact lens wear, but this figure increased to 68% when wearing contact lenses. There were no age differences, but almost twice as many females as males reported dryness. Reporting symptoms of dryness was associated with gender, corneal sensitivity, and type of corneal staining. CONCLUSIONS: These results provide a representation of the ocular surface condition and symptoms of ocular discomfort in the middle-aged population and seem similar to reports of younger populations. Wearing contact lenses seems to influence dry eye symptoms more than age or gender. Therefore, presbyopes should not be excluded from consideration for contact lens fitting.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 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".