MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2342310595

Antifungal ocular drug delivery via contact lenses using a novel in vitro eye model

2016· dissertation· en· W2342310595 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Chau‐Minh Phan

Bibliographic record

VenueUWSpace (University of Waterloo) · 2016
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOcular Surface and Contact Lens
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Optometric Education Trust Fund
KeywordsAntifungalIn vitroMedicineDrug deliveryDrugAntifungal drugsOptometryOphthalmologyPharmacologyBiomedical engineeringMaterials scienceChemistryNanotechnologyDermatology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose: \nThe purpose of this thesis was to evaluate the potential of contact lenses (CLs) as an antifungal drug delivery device, and to develop an in vitro eye model to test thereof. \n \nMethods: \nThe first three chapters focused on developing a CL to function as a drug delivery device for natamycin, the only commercially available antifungal: \n•\tIn the first experiment (Chapter 3), the in vitro uptake and release characteristics of natamycin from several commercially available CLs were evaluated \n•\tIn the second experiment (Chapter 4), to improve the release characteristics of natamycin from contact lenses, an attempt was made to incorporate novel drug-encapsulated nanoparticles (Dex-b-PLA) within the CLs \n•\tIn the third experiment (Chapter 5), an alternative strategy employing the incorporation of cyclodextrin (CDs) within the CL polymer matrix was evaluated as a potential modification to prolong the release of natamycin \nThe second half of the thesis was aimed at developing a sophisticated in vitro ocular model capable of adequately measuring drug release from CLs: \n•\tIn Chapter 6, the design of a novel in vitro eye model to simulate the physiological ocular environment was outlined \n•\tIn Chapter 7, this model was used to evaluate the release of the antifungal fluconazole from commercially daily disposable CLs \n•\tIn chapter 8, as an extension of the developed in vitro eye model, an agar eye model was developed to test the effects of natamycin and fluconazole-releasing CLs on Candida albicans \n \nResults \nCommercial CLs, after drug incubation with natamycin, will release the drug rapidly within the first half hour, followed by a plateau phase. However, when CL materials were loaded instead with natamycin encapsulated within novel Dex-b-PLA nanoparticles, the release duration was extended to 12 hours. Modifying the CL polymer with methacrylated CDs did not significantly improve drug release. On the contrary, high loading of CDs decreased overall drug delivery efficiency, likely resulting from unfavourable arrangements of the CDs within the polymer network. \nThe developed ocular platform, termed Ocuflow, simulates physiological tear flow, tear volume, air exposure and mechanical wear. When this system was used to analyze the release of fluconazole from commercial CLs, the drug release was sustained for up to 24 hours. This observation significantly contrasts drug release observed in a vial, which typically follows a burst-plateau profile. When CLs releasing natamycin and fluconazole were tested on agar eye models that were inoculated with Candida albicans, the growth of the yeast was limited by natamycin-containing CLs. The cell morphology of the yeast also differed noticeably based on drug-lens combinations. \n \nConclusions \nThis thesis details potential strategies to develop novel CLs for antifungal ocular drug delivery. The Ocuflow system developed from this thesis is highly versatile; not only can it be used effectively to measure drug release from CLs, but it can also be applied to other in vitro analyses with 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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.209 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUWSpace (University of Waterloo)Same topicOcular Surface and Contact LensFrench-language works237,207