Clinical Evaluation of Large Diameter Rigid-Gas Permeable Versus Soft Toric Contact Lenses for the Correction of Refractive Astigmatism. A MultiCenter Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study aims to address the clinical performance of a large diameter rigid gas permeable lens (LRGP) in a group of subjects with low-to-moderate (0.75-2.75 D) refractive astigmatism. An additional goal was to determine whether soft toric or LRGP contact lenses performed better objectively in the correction of astigmatism and to determine which modality is preferred by subjects. METHODS: This was a multisite prospective cross-over clinical study. Ten asymptomatic contact lens wearers per site (four university clinics) were recruited and randomly assigned to group A or group B. Group A was assigned to start wearing Comfilcon A soft toric lens first, for two weeks, and then crossed over to LRGP lenses (Boston XO, 14.3 mm diameter miniscleral lens). Group B initially wore LRGP lenses and then crossed over to soft toric lenses. For each type of lens worn, low-contrast and high-contrast visual acuity (VA) were evaluated at distance. At the conclusion of the study, after two months, all subjects completed a questionnaire in which they were asked to indicate their preference for one type of lens (soft toric or LRGP) and to rate the quality of vision in day-to-day activities. RESULTS: Thirty-six of 38 (94.7%) subjects completed the study with 75% preferring the vision of the LRGP lens as compared to the soft toric lenses worn in the study. 52.7% expressed a preference to continue with this modality despite only 38.8% reporting that these LRGP lenses are easy or very easy to handle. Wear time, subjective comfort, and subjective vision ratings exhibited no significant difference between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: In a population of asymptomatic contact lens wearers, LRGP lenses can be considered as a good alternative to soft toric lenses for the correction of refractive astigmatism.
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 | 0.025 | 0.141 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".