Development of an <em>In Vitro</em> Ocular Platform to Test Contact Lenses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Currently, in vitro evaluations of contact lenses (CLs) for drug delivery are typically performed in large volume vials, which fail to mimic physiological tear volumes. The traditional model also lacks the natural tear flow component and the blinking reflex, both of which are defining factors of the ocular environment. The development of a novel model is described in this study, which consists of a unique 2-piece design, eyeball and eyelid piece, capable of mimicking physiological tear volume. The models are created from 3-D printed molds (Polytetrafluoroethylene or Teflon molds), which can be used to generate eye models from various polymers, such as polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS) and agar. Further modifications to the eye pieces, such as the integration of an explanted human or animal cornea or human corneal construct, will permit for more complex in vitro ocular studies. A commercial microfluidic syringe pump is integrated with the platform to emulate physiological tear secretion. Air exposure and mechanical wear are achieved using two mechanical actuators, of which one moves the eyelid piece laterally, and the other moves the eyeballeyepiece circularly. The model has been used to evaluate CLs for drug delivery and deposition of tear components on CLs.
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 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) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".