MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2747949054 · doi:10.1097/opx.0000000000001111

Effect of Time on Scleral Lens Settling and Change in Corneal Clearance

2017· article· en· W2747949054 on OpenAlexaff
Heinz Otchere, Lyndon Jones, Luigina Sorbara

Bibliographic record

VenueOptometry and Vision Science · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOphthalmology and Visual Impairment Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScleral lensContact lensKeratoconusOphthalmologyLens (geology)CorneaSagittal planeMeridian (astronomy)MedicineCorneal topographyOpticsOptometryAnatomyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

SIGNIFICANCE: With the increase in the use of scleral contact lenses among practitioners, questions regarding lens settling are gradually gaining attention. This is because current studies support the notion that scleral lenses settle back over time. More research is needed to understand the exact cause and the factors that underpin such phenomenon. PURPOSE: The present study aims to assess the effect of time on topographic corneal clearance of three scleral contact lenses of varying sagittal depths. METHODS: Three scleral contact lenses were fitted to 20 subjects with previous diagnosis of keratoconus (n = 18) or pellucid marginal degeneration (n = 2). The fit was based on corneal sagittal height measured with the Visante optical coherence tomographer (OCT) at 15 mm along the horizontal meridian. To select an appropriate lens from the diagnostic lens set, values of 325 μm (lens 1), 375 μm (lens 2), and 425 μm (lens 3) were randomly added in sequence to the corneal sagittal height. Subjects wore each lens for 1 hour. Corneal clearance was measured at 10-minute intervals for 1 hour using a custom ultra-long OCT. To assess change in clearance, central point and two mid-peripheral points (+3 mm and -3 mm) along an 8-mm chord were measured by taking differences at each time point up to 1 hour. Measurements were repeated for the two other lenses. RESULTS: Mean central corneal clearance loss for all three lenses was 33.83 ± 48.40 μm. This was 26 ± 27 μm (13 ± 14 μm, +3 mm; 34 ± 37 μm, -3 mm), lens 1; 35 ± 59 μm (38 ± 61 μm, +3 mm; 52 ± 69 μm, -3 mm), lens 2; and 41 ± 54 μm (33 ± 26 μm, +3 mm; 52 ± 48 μm, -3 mm), lens 3, respectively. There was no significant difference (P = 0.06) at central and other locations for lens 1 (location and over time). There were significant differences for both lenses 2 and 3 (P < .001, P = .01, respectively) for all three locations and over time. CONCLUSIONS: There is a likelihood of clearance loss after 1 hour of lens wear. This varies between subjects, initial lens-fit relationship, and over time.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.046
GPT teacher head0.498
Teacher spread0.452 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations41
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOptometry and Vision ScienceSame topicOphthalmology and Visual Impairment StudiesFrench-language works237,207