Novel Poly(vinylpyrrolidone)-Coated Silicone Contact Lenses to Improve Tear Volume During Lens Wear: In Vitro and In Vivo Studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Poly(vinylpyrrolidone) (PVP-K90) is widely used to manage dry eye syndrome (DES). The marketed eye drop solutions (high dose) need frequent instillation, affecting the routine lifestyle of patients. PVP-K90-laden contact lenses can be used to overcome the limitations of eye drop solutions (low bioavailability and frequent instillation). However, the conventional methods of PVP-K90 loading show poor loading capacity and short duration of effect. In the present study, we have developed PVP-K90-coated contact lenses via a short curing approach to increase the PVP-K90 loading capacity with a sustained release profile to manage dry eye syndrome. PVP-K90 was loaded by a soaking method (SM-PVP), direct loading (during fabrication, DL-PVP), a combination of soaking and direct loading (DL-SM-PVP), and a novel coating process (SM-PVP-C and DL-SM-PVP-C). The swelling studies suggested improvement in the water uptake (hydration) property of the contact lenses due to the presence of PVP-K90. The optical transparency was within an acceptable range. The in vitro release of PVP-K90 was in the following order: PVP-coated contact lens (168 h) > DL-SM-PVP (168 h) > DL-PVP (96 h) > SM-PVP (72-96 h). PVP-coated contact lenses showed a high burst effect (lubricating effect) and sustained release (3161-448 ng/h between 24 and 168 h) due to high PVP loading/coating in comparison to the uncoated respective contact lenses (964-113 ng/h between 24 and 96 h). In animal studies, the PVP-K90-coated contact lens showed higher tear volume in comparison to the respective uncoated contact lenses and an eye drop solution. This study demonstrates a novel approach of coating a high amount of PVP-K90 on contact lenses for sustained release to manage several ocular diseases like dry eye syndrome, conjunctivitis, and other ocular injuries.
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) | 0.000 | 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".