Comparison of Ocular Lubricant Osmolalities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the osmolality of commercially available ocular tear lubricants. METHODS: Thirty-seven (n = 37) ocular lubricants, measured three times each, were evaluated for osmolality using a vapor pressure osmometer (Wescor VAPRO 5520). The osmometer was calibrated before each use, and the order of the lubricants was randomized. Ambient temperature and humidity were monitored for stability. RESULTS: Of the 37 ocular lubricants tested, 35 (94.6%) had an osmolality of less than 295 mmol/kg, one (2.7%) had between 295 and 308 mmol/kg, and one (2.7%) had more than 308 mmol/kg. The ambient room temperature was stable and ranged from 21.9°C to 22.0°C, and the relative humidity ranged from 21.2% to 25.6% during experimentation. When ocular lubricants were grouped by ingredient (carboxymethylcellulose and hydroxylpropyl methylcellulose, hyaluronic acid, and hydroxypropyl guar), no significant difference in osmolality was noted between groups (Mann-Whitney U test, P > .05). CONCLUSIONS: The majority of the ocular lubricants tested had low osmolalities, mimicking the osmolarity of newly formed tears (295 to 300 mOsm/L). Several factors need to be considered when choosing a tear lubricant, which have more complex formulations than ever. Knowledge of their osmolality may be an added parameter to consider when choosing therapeutic options for dry eye.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".