The chemotactic properties of various topical brimonidine tartrate ophthalmic preparations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The study aimed to evaluate and compare the leukocyte chemotactic activities of various brimonidine tartrate (BT) eye drop formulations. METHODS: A 96-well dot-blot platet using a Boyden-style well was used to study the chemotactic effects of BT ophthalmic preparations. A modification was made to create blind wells where the tested agents were placed. Leukocytes were isolated from the peripheral blood of healthy volunteers. As positive controls, we used diluted drugs, benzalkonium chloride solution (BAK), zymosan-activated serum, and formyl-methionine-leucine-phenylalanine peptides. The negative control in our study was a phosphate-buffered saline solution. For each experimental condition, we measured leukocyte migration through a Millipore membrane. The differences in the mean migration distance between groups were compared using the analysis of variance (ANOVA). RESULTS: The measured migration distances (in μm ± SD) were 62.14 ± 3.71 for BT 0.2% with BAK (Alcon Laboratories Inc.); 63.61 ± 3.81 for BT 0.2% with BAK (Allergan Inc); 40.36 ± 3.17 for BT 0.15% without BAK; and 41.02 ± 2.17 for BAK alone. The negative controls showed no chemotactic activity, while the positive controls showed the highest neutrophil migration of all experimental conditions. The differences between BT 0.15% without BAK and the other commercial formulations were statistically significant. CONCLUSION: Commercial ophthalmic preparations of BT 0.2% with BAK 0.005% had higher chemotactic properties than the alternative of a lower concentration of BT and without the preservative BAK. Therefore, the latter should be considered for patients with glaucoma or ocular hypertension in order to minimize iatrogenic ocular inflammation.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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".