Depth Profile Assessment of the Early Phase Deposition of Lysozyme on Soft Contact Lens Materials Using a Novel In Vitro Eye Model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To characterize the location of fluorescently labeled lysozyme on commercial contact lenses (CLs) using an in vitro eye model that simulates tear volume, tear flow, air exposure, and mechanical wear. METHODS: One commercially available conventional hydrogel CL material (etafilcon A) and three silicone hydrogel CL materials (balafilcon A, lotrafilcon B, and senofilcon A) were evaluated in this study. The CLs were mounted on the in vitro eye model and exposed to artificial tear fluid containing fluorescein isothiocyanate (FITC)-labeled lysozyme for 2 and 10 hrs. After these short incubation periods, circular discs were punched from the CLs at the center and periphery and were prepared for confocal laser scanning microscopy (CLSM). The CLSM captured a series of consecutive images spaced 5 μm apart, and the resulting images were rendered into two dimensional cross-sectional views of the CL. The mean fluorescence at each 5 μm slice was used to generate a histogram depicting the penetration of FITC-lysozyme into CLs. RESULTS: For both incubation periods, the CLSM images and histogram of etafilcon A showed that FITC-lysozyme is more concentrated at the lens surface, with a moderate amount of deposition in the lens matrix. For balafilcon A, FITC-lysozyme was evenly distributed throughout the lens. For lotrafilcon B, there was a greater amount of FITC-lysozyme deposition on the surfaces of the lens versus the matrix. Senofilcon A had differential FITC-lysozyme distribution profiles depending on the location of the lens. At the lens periphery, FITC-lysozyme primarily deposited on the surface, whereas FITC-lysozyme was uniformly distributed at the center of the lens. CONCLUSIONS: With the use of a sophisticated in vitro eye model, the study revealed a complex deposition pattern of FITC-labeled lysozyme on various CL materials after short periods of exposure. An understanding of the early deposition pattern of lysozyme on different CL material may elucidate new insights into the processes behind CL discomfort.
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 | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 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".