Domestic and imported oxymetazoline ophthalmic solutions in treating non-infectious conjunctivitis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To evaluate the efficacy of domestic 0.025% oxymetazoline ophthalmic solution in treating non infectious conjunctivitis. METHODS: Two hundred and four outpatients with non infectious conjunctivitis were randomly divided into two groups. Domestic group (103 patients) received 0.025% domestic oxymetazoline ophthalmic solution made in Tianjin; imported group received the same kind of ophthalmic solution made in Canada, tid qid, for 7 d. The effect and adverse reaction were observed. RESULTS: The effective rates were 97.1% in domestic group and 98.0% in imported group( P 0.05). Only a few patients had complaints of dry eyes or conjunctival irritant sensation. Patients had complaints of dry eyes or conjunctival irritant sensation, 4.9%, 6.8% in domestic group and 6.9%, 8.9% in imported group, respectively( P 0.05). The ophthalmic solution didn't effect visual acuity,diameter of pupil, pulse and blood pressure. No significant differences were found between these two groups. CONCLUSION: Domestic 0.025% oxymetazoline ophthalmic solution was as effective and safe as the imported one.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".