Comparison of the Lubricity and Surface Roughness of 5 Cosmetic Contact Lenses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Cosmetic contact lenses are increasingly popular because of their eye enhancing cosmetic benefits. The pigment particles used in these lenses can impact lens surface characteristics. This article examines the surface characteristics and the differences between the clear and the pigmented regions among five limbal ring design lenses. METHODS: Scanning electron microscopy was used to determine the location and depth of the pigment particles from the lens surface. The coefficient of friction (CoF) was determined with a Basalt-MUST microtribometer at clear and pigmented regions on either the front or the back surface. Atomic force microscopy was used to determine the surface roughness of each lens in root-mean-square (RMS) units at clear and pigmented regions. A linear mixed model for repeated measures was used for the analysis of the CoF and RMS roughness to compare all lenses. RESULTS: Four lens types had pigments exposed on the surface and one lens type had pigment fully enclosed. The CoF difference between clear and pigmented regions were similar and not statistically significant (P=0.0124) for the lens type with pigments enclosed, whereas the CoF difference for the other four lens types showed statistically significant difference (P<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Of the lenses tested here, cosmetic contact lenses with pigments enclosed in the lens matrix provided a more consistent surface between clear and pigmented regions compared with lenses that had exposed pigments.
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 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".