The predictability of retention and discontinuation of contact lenses.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The objective of this research was to investigate the possibility of predicting the retention or discontinuation of contact lenses on the basis of their effect on the quality of life of the wearer. While most studies of discontinuation of assistive technology devices have focused on other than psychosocial causes of discontinuation, there is reason to believe that a major cause is the psychosocial effect of the device on the user. METHODS: Participants were 418 adult volunteers who had been fitted with contact lenses. One hundred eighty of the participants had discontinued wearing their lenses, while 238 were still wearing their lenses. The participants were asked to complete a recently developed questionnaire, the Psychosocial Impact of Assistive Devices Scales (PIADS), which measures the psychosocial impact of assistive devices, and is used also to predict retention and discontinuation of other assistive devices. RESULTS: Overall correct prediction of the 418 respondents was 68.9%. The PIADS was better at predicting discontinuation than retention among males, while the reverse was true for females. CONCLUSIONS: The PIADS was shown to be a valid instrument to predict retention and discontinuation of contact lenses.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".