Lipid Deposition on Contact Lenses when Using Contemporary Care Solutions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
SIGNIFICANCE: There remains only a small amount of data from human studies demonstrating the effect of contact lens/lens care solution combinations on the deposition of lipids. Therefore, information on the degree to which modern materials deposit lipids when used with contemporary care solutions would be valuable. PURPOSE: The present study aims to determine the effect of lens care system combinations on levels of total lipid, cholesterol, and cholesteryl esters extracted from three different contact lenses (CLs) when used with four contemporary care systems. METHODS: Experienced CL wearers were recruited to participate in this study. Combinations of three CLs (etafilcon A [ETA], galyfilcon A [GALY], and senofilcon A [SENO]) and four CL care solutions (Biotrue, ClearCare, OPTI-FREE PureMoist, and RevitaLens Ocutec) were investigated. A total of 791 CLs were analyzed. Subjects were randomized to one lens type and then used all four lens care solutions in random sequence for 10-14 days before the CLs were collected and analyzed for the amount of cholesterol, cholesteryl esters, and total lipids. RESULTS: The mean range of cholesterol recovered across the different care solutions was 0.34-2.77 μg/lens, 3.48-4.29 μg/lens, and 4.75-6.20 μg/lens for ETA, SENO, and GALY lenses, respectively. Use of OPTI-FREE PureMoist with ETA lenses led to a significantly greater amount of cholesterol being recovered when compared to the use of the other solutions with ETA lenses (P < .05). The mean range of cholesteryl esters recovered across different care solutions was 1.31-2.02 μg/lens, 6.43-7.19 μg/lens, and 7.96-10.13 μg/lens for ETA, SENO, and GALY lenses, respectively. There were no differences in the amount of cholesteryl esters and total lipids extracted for a given lens type when used with any of the four care solutions (P > .05). CONCLUSIONS: This study did not demonstrate conclusively that any of the solution/CL combinations were superior to any of the other combinations when the amounts of lipid deposition were compared among the tested 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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".