MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2775397977 · doi:10.1167/iovs.17-22414

Coefficient of Friction Between Carboxymethylated Hyaluronic Acid-Based Polymer Films and the Ocular Surface

2017· article· en· W2775397977 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Jourdan Colter, Barbara Wirostko, Brittany Coats

Bibliographic record

VenueInvestigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOcular Surface and Contact Lens
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCanadian Mental Health Association
KeywordsHyaluronic acidPolymerFriction coefficientScleraMaterials scienceCoefficient of frictionComposite materialBiomedical engineeringPolymer chemistrySurgeryAnatomyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose: Hyaluronic acid-based polymer films are emerging as drug-delivery vehicles for local and continuous drug administration to the eye. The highly lubricating hyaluronic acid increases comfort, but displaces films from the eye, reducing drug exposure and efficacy. Previous studies have shown that careful control of the surface interaction of the film with the eye is critical for improved retention. Methods: In this study, the frictional interaction of a carboxymethylated, hyaluronic acid-based polymer (CMHA-S) with and without methylcellulose was quantified against ovine and human sclera at three axial loads (0.3, 0.5, and 0.7 N) and four sliding velocities (0.3, 1.0, 10, and 30 mm/s). Results: Static coefficients of friction significantly increased with rate (P < 0.003), ranging between 0.18 ± 0.08 and 0.46 ± 0.13 for 0.3 to 30 mm/s, respectively. Friction became more rate-dependent when methylcellulose was added to CMHA-S. Kinetic coefficient of friction was not affected by rate, and averaged 0.15 ± 0.1. Methylcellulose increased CMHA-S static and kinetic friction by 60% and 80%, respectively, but was also prone to wear during testing. Conclusions: These data suggest that methylcellulose can be used to create a friction differential on the film, but a potentially increased degradation rate with the methylcellulose must be considered in the design.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.993

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.010
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.297 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations7
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInvestigative Ophthalmology & Visual ScienceSame topicOcular Surface and Contact LensFrench-language works237,207