Hypersensitivity to Cold Stimuli in Symptomatic Contact Lens Wearers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To examine the cooling thresholds and the estimated sensation magnitude at stimulus detection in controls and symptomatic and asymptomatic contact lens (CL) wearers, to determine whether detection thresholds depend on the presence of symptoms of dryness and discomfort. METHODS: Forty-nine adapted CL wearers and 15 non-lens wearing controls had room temperature pneumatic thresholds measured using a custom Belmonte esthesiometer, during Visits 1 and 2 (Baseline CL), Visit 3 (2 weeks no CL wear), and Visit 4 (2 weeks after resuming CL wear). CL wearers were subdivided into symptomatic and asymptomatic groups based on comfortable wearing time (CWT) and CLDEQ-8 score (<8 hours CWT and ≥14 CLDEQ-8 stratified the symptom groups). Detection thresholds were estimated using an ascending method of limits and each threshold was the average of the three first-reported flow rates. The magnitude of intensity, coolness, irritation, and pain at detection of the stimulus were estimated using a 1-100 scale (1 very mild, 100 very strong). RESULTS: In all measurement conditions, the symptomatic CL wearers were the most sensitive, the asymptomatic CL wearers were the least sensitive, and the control group was between the two CL wearing groups (group factor p < 0.001, post hoc asymptomatic vs. symptomatic group, all p's < 0.015). Similar patterns were found for the estimated magnitude of intensity and irritation (group effect p = 0.027 and 0.006 for intensity and irritation, respectively) but not for cooling (p > 0.05) at detection threshold. CONCLUSIONS: Symptomatic CL wearers have higher cold detection sensitivity and report greater intensity and irritation sensation at stimulus detection than the asymptomatic wearers. Room temperature pneumatic esthesiometry may help to better understand the process of sensory adaptation to CL 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 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 | 0.002 |
| 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".