Effects of a sea buckthorn oil spray emulsion on dry eye
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To investigate the effects of a sea buckthorn oil and sodium hyaluronate-containing eyelid spray emulsion (SB spray) on dry eye. METHODS: A randomized controlled study was carried out. Adults (25-70 years) with Ocular Surface Disease Index (OSDI) ≥20 and moderate or severe dryness, burning or grittiness of the eyes were included. In study part one (n = 2), SB spray was used on both closed eyelids four times in one day. In part two (n = 10), SB spray was used on one randomized eyelid, and a commercial reference spray on the other for nine days. In part three (n = 40), eyes were randomized to one eye receiving SB spray and an untreated control for 1.5 months. Dry eye tests were carried out at baseline, during, and at the end of each study section. Symptoms were recorded in questionnaires and daily logs. RESULTS: In part one, the SB spray was well tolerated. In part two, OSDI decreased significantly (P = 0.022) in the SB spray eye compared to the reference spray, indicating a beneficial effect on symptoms. In part three, OSDI in the SB spray eye decreased significantly compared to the untreated control (P = 0.0007). The scores for dryness at the study end were lower in the SB spray eye compared to control (P = 0.0070). Symptom sums and frequencies of dryness (sum P = 0.0046, frequency P = 0.0016) and watering (sum P = 0.0003, frequency P = 0.013) in the daily logs were lower in the eye treated with SB spray. CONCLUSIONS: SB spray on closed eyelids relieved the symptoms of dry eye.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".