The Relation Between Blinking and Conjunctival Folds and Dry Eye Symptoms
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.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it