MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2125803456

Predicting extended wear complications from overnight corneal swelling.

2001· article· en· W2125803456 on OpenAlexaff
Andrew D. Graham, Robert E. Fusaro, Kenneth A. Polse, Meng C. Lin, Claude Giasson

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOcular Surface and Contact Lens
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineContact lensKeratometerOphthalmologyRandomized controlled trialCorneaEdemaSurgery
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: To examine the hypothesis that the corneal overnight swelling response (ONSR) is a predictor of ocular complications in contact lens extended wear (EW). METHODS: The Berkeley Contact Lens Extended Wear Study (CLEWS) was a randomized, concurrently controlled clinical trial in which more than 200 subjects in EW with rigid gas-permeable (RGP) lenses were observed for 1 year. After adapting to EW, subjects were randomized to either medium or high oxygen-permeable (Dk) RGP lenses and underwent clinical assessments, keratometry, and corneal pachometry at 3-month intervals. RESULTS: The ONSR was directly related to lens Dk (P = 0.01) and exhibited substantial variability across subjects. The probability of remaining free of complications over time was not significantly lower for subjects with a mild ONSR compared with those with greater edema (P = 0.84). The risk of development of keratopathy was not significantly related to the ONSR (relative risk = 1.00). CONCLUSIONS: The corneal ONSR is not a good predictor of ocular complications in 1 year of RGP EW. Lenses that cause little or no corneal edema are not necessarily safer for overnight wear.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.056
Threshold uncertainty score0.415

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.212 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations21
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicOcular Surface and Contact LensFrench-language works237,207