MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3125549646 · doi:10.22374/jclrs.v5i1.40

INFLUENCE OF THE SCLERAL LENS AND FLUID RESERVOIR THICKNESSES ON RESIDUAL ASTIGMATISM

2021· article· en· W3125549646 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Langis Michaud, Gabriella Courey

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Contact lens Research and Science · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOcular Surface and Contact Lens
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScleral lensLens (geology)AstigmatismOphthalmologyRefractionCorneal topographyOpticsRefractive errorVisual acuityMaterials scienceCorneaMedicinePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PurposeThis study aims to determine if lens or tear fluid reservoir thicknesses (LT/FRT) may influence the presence of residual astigmatism and participant’s visual acuity. MethodsThe study was a randomized, non-dispensing, prospective study. Empirically and randomly chosen participants were fitted with 4 combinations (350 and 250 um LT fitted with 250 and 350 um FRT) of 16 mm diameter scleral lenses, designed using a corneo-scleral profiler software (sMap 3D, Visionary Optics, US). Lenses haptics were kept spherical for all lenses. They were evaluated under a slit lamp, anterior segement OCT (objective fluid reservoir and lens thicknesses), topography over lenses and aberrometry, after 30 minutes of lens wear. Spherico-cylindrical refraction and logMar acuity were also assessed. ResultsStudy population was composed of 24 participants aged 24.2 + 4.7 years old. Baseline refractive error was -2.3 + 1.6 D with -0.48 + 0.26 D of astigmatism. In vivo (OCT) lens A was 344.1 ± 15.4 um thick, fitted with a vault of 213.6 ± 42.4 um; Lens B was 346.2 ± 12.5/327.2 ± 44.8; Lens C was 260.3 ± 17.7/214.0 ± 40.6 um and Lens D was 262.2 ±13.2/330.8 ± 52.0 respectively. All lenses were found similarly decentered inferiorly by 0.10 to 0.15 um. BCVA was −0.32 + 0.08 (A), −0.21 + 0.10 (B), −0.28 + 0.08 (C), and −0.14 + 0.10 (D), compared to −0.25 + 0.08 (A), −0.11 + 0.10 (B), −0.23 + 0.06 (C), and −0.05 + 0.12 (D) when sphere only was compensated. Residual refractive astigmatism (RA = -0.50 to -0.75D) is found significantly higher based on the FRT (F=9.560; p=0.037) and not LT(F=0.429; p=0.522). There is no correlation be-tween RA and over-k readings (Lens A r=-0.078, p=0.773; Lens B r=−0.073, p=0.788; Lens C r=−0.345, p=0.171; Lend D r=0.019, p=0.944). Higher order aberrations, mostly vertical coma, were found clinically significant but not statistically different between lenses (A= 0.350 + 0.032; B=0.382 + 0.053, C=0.329 + 0.044 and D=0.385+ 0.062; p=0.776) ConclusionThis study proves that low level of RA may be found when scleral lenses are fitted on normal corneas. Its occurrence is related to the presence of high-order aberrations and less likely to lens flexure.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.755
Threshold uncertainty score0.402

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.291 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations6
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Contact lens Research and ScienceSame topicOcular Surface and Contact LensFrench-language works237,207