Pilot Study to Determine the Effect of Lens and Eye Rinsing on Solution‐Induced Corneal Staining (SICS)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The main purpose of this study was to determine whether two interventions (rinsing the lens before lens insertion and rinsing the ocular surface post-lens removal) had any impact on solution-induced corneal staining (SICS). In addition, the presence of hyper-reflective epithelial cells in the presence of SICS was investigated. METHODS: Twenty subjects wore new balafilcon A lenses, which had been soaked overnight in a multipurpose care product containing polyhexamethylene biguanide for 2 hours. The study was conducted across three phases. In phase 1 (investigator and subject masked, randomized eye), one lens was rinsed with nonpreserved saline before lens insertion. In phase 2 (investigator masked, randomized eye), one eye was rinsed with nonpreserved saline after lens removal, before staining assessment. Corneal staining was recorded as the percentage area of the cornea exhibiting superficial punctate staining. In both phases, ocular comfort and presence of specific symptoms were captured. In phase 3, there was no randomized treatment; confocal images of the epithelium were obtained after 2 hours of wear. RESULTS: In phase 1 (lens-rinse), there was no significant difference in staining between the treated and untreated eyes (84 vs. 92%, respectively; p = 0.06). In phase 2 (eye-rinse), there was also no significant difference between the treated and untreated eye (86 vs. 86%, p = 0.92). Most subjects were asymptomatic. In phase 3, images of hyper-reflective cells were captured in 97% of the eyes imaged. CONCLUSIONS: The two rinsing procedures did not affect the level of the SICS response. Hyper-reflective epithelial cells were found to be present in a significant number of eyes exhibiting SICS, and their presence warrants further investigation.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".