Clinical Performance of Samfilcon A Contact Lenses in Intensive Digital Device Users: A Multicenter, Prospective Clinical Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: To evaluate patient satisfaction with samfilcon A contact lenses (CLs) in intensive digital device users with myopia and to compare patient satisfaction with samfilcon A lenses to prior experience with senofilcon A or lotrafilcon B CLs. METHODS: This was a comparative, prospective, national study conducted at 14 centers in Turkey. Subjects were adults aged 18 and 45 years with myopia (range -0.25 D to -6.00 D) who spend a minimum of 3 hours viewing digital devices (e.g., computer, smartphone). A subgroup of patients were habitual lens wearers (senofilcon A or lotrafilcon B lens wear for at least 6 months prior to enrollment). The primary assessment was patient satisfaction with samfilcon A lenses (0-100 Likert scale). Secondary assessments included patient satisfaction with samfilcon A lenses compared to patients' habitual lenses, investigator satisfaction with samfilcon A lenses and investigator-evaluated slit lamp examination findings. RESULTS: Samfilcon A lenses were given high overall ratings from both patients and investigators, with a low incidence of ocular symptoms. Overall, patients were highly satisfied with samfilcon A lenses for comfort, vision and overall performance, and stated that they would consider wearing these lenses in the future. Among habitual senofilcon A or lotrafilcon B lens wearers, samfilcon A lenses were rated significantly better than the habitual lenses in regard to comfort, vision and overall performance. Investigator assessments were also highly favorable, both at initial fit and after 4 weeks of follow-up, with no significant findings noted on slit lamp examination. CONCLUSION: Samfilcon A lenses were rated highly by investigators in regard to fit, handling and slit lamp findings, and by novice and habitual lens wearers in regard to comfort, vision and overall performance. These results support the use of samfilcon A lenses among digital device users who seek day-long comfort and good visual acuity.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".