The Relation Between Blinking and Conjunctival Folds and Dry Eye Symptoms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To investigate the relationship between blink action, dry eye symptoms, and lid-parallel conjunctival folds (LIPCOF). METHODS: In 30 subjects (14 were women; mean [standard deviation {SD}] age, 42.4 [±12.3] years), spontaneous blinks were recorded from a temporal-inferior view (high-speed video), and the blink extent (incomplete [IC], almost complete [AC], and complete [CC]) was evaluated. Dry eye symptoms were evaluated using the Ocular Surface Disease Index (OSDI), and nasal and temporal LIPCOF grades were noted. Correlations between groups were calculated with Pearson correlation (or Spearman rank in nonparametric data), and differences between groups were calculated with an unpaired t-test (or U-test Mann-Whitney in nonparametric data). RESULTS: Blink rate was significantly higher in females (22.0% [±16.8]) than in males (8.6% [±7.2]; unpaired t-test: p = 0.007). The percentage of AC of all blinks (AC%) was significantly correlated to LIPCOF sum (nasal + temporal) and OSDI scores (r > 0.570, p < 0.001). The percentage of IC was significantly correlated to LIPCOF sum (r = -0.541, p < 0.001) but not to OSDI. CONCLUSIONS: The frequency and type of blinking may have an effect on dry eye symptoms and LIPCOF severity since almost all complete blinks were significantly related to both factors.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".