Corneal Vascularization in a Group of Soft Contact Lens Wearers: Prevalence, Magnitude, Type and Related Factors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Groups of 827 soft contact lens wearers and 900 non-contact lens wearers were examined for corneal vascularization by means of biomicroscopy. Slit-lamp photographs were taken to record cases of vascularization and to permit measurements of the magnitude of the vascular response. The prevalence of corneal vascularization in the soft contact lens group was 33.9% compared to 2.0% in the non-contact lens group. Of the soft contact lens related vascular responses, 98.6% were located in the superficial stroma, indicating that the conjunctival circulation is most often involved in corneal vascular responses to soft contact lenses. Vascular penetration radially into the cornea from the limbus did not exceed 4.5 mm in either the study or control groups; 96.8% of the vascular responses being 1.5 mm or less in the soft contact lens group. Age and sex of the patients were not significantly related to the observed frequency of corneal vascularization in either the study or control groups. However, refractive error, daily wearing time and the total length of time soft contact lenses had been worn were significantly related to the observed frequency of corneal vascularization in the soft contact lens group. Even though sampling error and bias affect this type of study, it appears that corneal vascularization is a frequent ocular response in patients who are wearing daily-wear and extended-wear soft contact lenses. This study supports the recommendation that all soft contact lens patients, including those who may be asymptomatic, should be carefully examined at regular intervals for signs of adverse ocular responses such as corneal vascularization.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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".