Preliminary Clinical Exploration of Scleral Lens Performance on Normal Eyes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objectives: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the performance (i.e. vision, comfort and fit) of spherical and front-surface toric scleral lenses in subjects with regular, healthy corneas. Methods: Scleral lenses were fitin the eyes (n = 16) of healthy subjects (n = 9) with regular corneas, absent of pathology, and studied using an observational, multi-visit design. Lens fit was objectively evaluatedby an experienced practitioner.Following 1 month of successful lens wear, participants completedsubjective satisfaction surveys regarding the scleral lens wearing experience. Results: According to participant surveys, scleral lenses were subjectively preferred over soft toric or gas permeable contact lenses in 88% of eyes, including in all eyes fit with a front-surface toric scleral lens (n = 3). Seventy-five percent (75%) of eyes achieved visual acuity of 0.1 logMAR or better, while all eyes with prior spectacle wear achieved visual acuity with a scleral lens within 1 Snellen line of spectacle correction. Seventy-five percent (75%) of eyes achieved good subjective comfort with a scleral lens. No participants reported poor subjective vision and/or comfort. Conclusions: Our findings suggest that subjects preferred the performance of a scleral lens (spherical or front-surface toric) compared to a soft toric or gas permeable contact lens. Moreover, scleral lenses may provide a viable, alternative contact lens modality option for patients considering discontinuation of traditional soft toric and/or rigid contact lens wear; so long as the factors associated with hypoxia remain minimized. Key Words: scleral lens; scleral contact lens; front-surface toric scleral lens; lens performance; normal eyes; healthy eyes
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".