Quantitative and conformational characterization of lysozyme deposited on balafilcon and etafilcon contact lens materials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To determine whether differences in lysozyme deposition and/or activity exist on worn etafilcon and balafilcon contact lenses following care with a polyquaternium-based system (PQ) or a polyhexanide-based system (PHMB). METHODS: Following acid-based deposit extraction, lysozyme concentration was determined via Western blotting and lysozyme activity was determined by a micrococcyl assay. RESULTS: Lysozyme deposition on etafilcon lenses was greater following disinfection with the PHMB-based system (1551 +/- 371 micro g/lens vs 935 +/- 271 micro g/lens; p < 0.001). Deposition on balafilcon lenses was not influenced by the care regimen (10 +/- 3.5 micro g/lens vs 10 +/- 5 micro g/lens; p = 0.89). For both materials, the percentage of denatured lysozyme was greater when they were exposed to the PHMB-based system (28 vs 21%; p = 0.05 (etafilcon) and 57 vs 40%; p = 0.04 (balafilcon)). CONCLUSIONS: The quantity and conformation of lysozyme deposited on hydrogel contact lens materials is significantly influenced by both lens material and care regimen.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".