MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2943946878 · doi:10.15353/cjo.69.716

The efficacy of the Hiline gas permeable contact lens for the management of Keratoconus

2007· article· en· W2943946878 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Xingwu Zhong, Richard Wu, Gang Tan, Xiangming Gong, Xiao Yang, Zuyou Dai, Ling Wei, Shuxing Li

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian journal of optometry/CJO. Canadian journal of optometry · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCorneal surgery and disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSpecialized Research Fund for the Doctoral Program of Higher Education of ChinaProgram for New Century Excellent Talents in UniversityFok Ying Tong Education FoundationNatural Science Foundation of Guangdong Province
KeywordsKeratoconusVisual acuityCorneaOphthalmologyMedicineContact lensLens (geology)OptometryOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose: To investigate the efficacy of the Hiline® gas permeable contact lens (Hiline® GP) for keratoconus in clinical practice in correcting visual acuity. Methods: 218 eyes of 126 patients with keratoconus were fitted with Hiline® lenses. The fit of the lenses was evaluated. Visual acuity measurements were taken with spectacle lenses and with the Hiline lenses. The period of follow-up to observe for complications ranged from 3 to 27 months. Results: In all eyes, the Hiline® GP provided acceptable vision. There was a statistically significant improvement in vision with the Hiline® GP compared with spectacle lenses (t=10.90, p<0.0001). Initial evaluation showed that 169 lenses (77.52%) demonstrated a three-pointtouch relationship with the cornea 38 lenses (17.43%) had an apical clearance relationship with the cornea and 11 lenses (5.05%) had an apical bearing relationship. No severe complications were observed. Conclusions: Using corneal topography as a guide, a high success rate was achieved with the Hiline® GP design. It is easy to reach the ideal fit and to improve the visual acuity. These indicate the usefulness of Hiline® lens in clinical practice.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.002

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.289 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian journal of optometry/CJO. Canadian journal of optometrySame topicCorneal surgery and disordersFrench-language works237,207