Effect of Masking on Subjective Responses to Daily Disposable Contact Lenses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To explore the effect of masking on subjective responses when wearing daily disposable (DD) contact lenses. METHODS: In an adaptation phase, habitual wearers of Manufacturer-A (MFA) (n = 43) and Manufacturer-B (MFB) (n = 53) wore MFA-brand 1 or MFB-brand 1 DDs, respectively, for 30 days, open-label. Subjects were then randomly assigned to one of two experiments. Each experiment included two, 3-day crossover phases. An enhanced version of MFA and MFB lenses (MFA-brand 2 and MFB-brand 2) were worn contralaterally to evaluate potential differences in masking result between manufacturers. Experiment 1: subjects were fully masked to lens and packaging (FM) then unmasked (UM). Experiment 2: subjects were FM then partially masked using an over-label (PM). Comfort ratings (0-100) were recorded for each lens daily and preference between lenses was recorded on day 3 for each crossover phase. The mean difference between 0-100 ratings or preference when FM or PM versus UM for the same lens was considered a measurement of the effect associated with masking. The purpose of the study was withheld from subjects to minimize bias. RESULTS: The effect associated with masking for habitual wearers of MFA and MFB lenses was less than 1 out of 100 (0 ± 2.5) in both experiments. Fifty-eight subjects (60%) expressed no preference when FM. This decreased to 29 (30%) when UM or PM (proportion test, p < 0.001). Approximately half the subjects had a change in lens preference when they were UM or PM, primarily in favor of their habitual lens manufacturer. CONCLUSIONS: Masking did not have a measurable impact on 0-100 ratings with the DD lenses used in this study but did have an impact on lens preference. Subjects were more likely to express a preference when they handled the lenses and were exposed to the lens packaging and, in some cases, able to read the lens brand and lens manufacturer.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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".