MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2757254243 · doi:10.1097/icl.0000000000000427

The Impact of Scleral Contact Lens Vault on Visual Acuity and Comfort

2017· article· en· W2757254243 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueEye & Contact Lens Science & Clinical Practice · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCorneal surgery and disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMeridian (astronomy)Contact lensOphthalmologyKeratoconusScleral lensVisual acuityMedicineCorneal topographyCorneaMathematicsNuclear medicineOpticsSurgeryPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: To assess how varying degrees of corneal clearance of scleral contact lenses (ScCL) impact visual acuity (VA) and comfort in patients with corneal ectasia. METHOD: Three ScCL were fitted to 20 subjects with previous diagnosis of either keratoconus (n=18) or pellucid marginal degeneration (n=2). Fitting of ScCL was based on corneal sagittal height (CSH) measured with Visante OCT at a 15-mm chord on the horizontal meridian. To select the ScCL from the diagnostic lens set, values of 325, 375, and 425 μm were randomly added in sequence to CSH. Subjects wore ScCL for 1 hr. Central corneal clearance (CCC) and topographic corneal clearance (TCC) along the vertical meridian were assessed using an ultralong optical coherence tomographer. High-contrast VA (HCVA) and low-contrast VA (LCVA) were measured using a logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution VA chart, and comfort ratings were obtained with a standard comfort scale (0-100). RESULTS: Mean CSH in the horizontal meridian was 3.78±0.53 (range: 3.33-4.17) mm at a 15-mm chord. Mean CCC was 190±100 μm (TCC: 160±94 μm at +3 mm and 180±94 μm at -3 mm), 360±120 μm (TCC: 260±100 μm at +3 mm and 330±110 μm at -3 mm), and 450±170 μm (TCC: 320±120 μm at +3 mm and 400±120 μm at -3 mm) for each lens (P=0.001). Mean HCVA for lenses 1, 2, and 3 were 0.05±0.12, 0.07±0.11, and 0.11±0.08 respectively, which were significantly different (P=0.02). Tukey post hoc analysis showed that this difference was only significant between lenses 1 and 3 (P=0.01). Similar findings were found for LCVA. Comfort ratings for lenses 1, 2, and 3 were 74.9±9.2, 79.7±11.6, and 78.6±10.8, respectively (P=0.24). CONCLUSION: The CSH is an effective method of determining the appropriate lens/cornea relationship. Lens 2 (+375 μm) gave the best combination of acuity and comfort ratings. Evaluation of the fluorescein pattern must be balanced with VA and comfort ratings for successful fitting in a clinical setting.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.043
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.068
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.043
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.109
GPT teacher head0.497
Teacher spread0.387 · 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