MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2799708532 · doi:10.22374/jclrs.v2i1.20

Scleral Lens Hygiene and Care

2018· article· en· W2799708532 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Daddi Fadel, Mindy Toabe

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Contact lens Research and Science · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOcular Infections and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScleral lensMedicineLens (geology)Compliance (psychology)HygieneOphthalmologyCorneaEngineeringPsychologyPetroleum engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Scleral lenses (ScCLs) are developed using the same material as rigid gas permeable corneal lenses yet the care of scleral lenses differs from corneal lenses. These large diameter rigid gas permeable lenses necessitate hygiene, care and compliance protocol that is more complex compared with corneal lenses. Cleaning, disinfection, storing, rinsing and applying ScCL will be discussed. Practitioners will gain confidence in ScCL care which will provide patients with a better understanding of the steps involved in ScCL disinfection leading to increased patient compliance and increased success rates. In turn, patient education will lower the risk for infection and other complications associated with ScCL.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.329
Threshold uncertainty score0.325

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.090
GPT teacher head0.405
Teacher spread0.316 · 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.

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

Citations5
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Contact lens Research and ScienceSame topicOcular Infections and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207