INFLUENCE OF THE SCLERAL LENS AND FLUID RESERVOIR THICKNESSES ON RESIDUAL ASTIGMATISM
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 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".