Lysozyme Deposition on Contact Lenses in an In Vitro Blink-Simulation Eye Model Versus a Static Vial Deposition Model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate active lysozyme deposition on daily disposable (DD) contact lenses (CL) using a novel in vitro blink model. METHODS: Three conventional hydrogel DD CL materials (etafilcon A, omafilcon A, nelfilcon A) and three silicone hydrogel DD CL materials (delefilcon A, senofilcon A, somofilcon A) were tested. The device blink rate was set to 6 blinks/min with a tear flow rate of 1 μL/min using an artificial tear solution (ATS) containing lysozyme and other typical tear film components. After incubation at 2, 4, or 8 hr, lenses were removed, and lysozyme activity was measured. A separate experiment was conducted with lenses incubated in a static vial containing 480 μL of ATS. RESULTS: Etafilcon A deposited significantly higher amounts of active lysozyme (402±102 μg/lens) than other lens materials after 8 hr (P<0.0001). Etafilcon A had a higher amount of active lysozyme using the blink model compared with the static vial (P=0.0435), whereas somofilcon A (P=0.0076) and senofilcon A (P=0.0019) had a higher amount of lysozyme activity in the vial compared with the blink model. CONCLUSION: The blink model can be tuned to provide quantitative data that closely mimics ex vivo studies and can be used to model deposition of lysozyme on CL materials.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".