Shear-Thinning and Temperature-Dependent Viscosity Relationships of Contemporary Ocular Lubricants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the shear viscosity of contemporary, commercially available ocular lubricants at various shear rates and temperatures and to derive relevant mathematical viscosity models that are impactful for prescribing and developing eye drops to treat dry eye disease. METHODS: The shear viscosity of 12 ocular lubricants was measured using a rheometer and a temperature-controlled bath at clinically relevant temperatures at which users may experience exposure to the drops (out of the refrigerator [4.3°C]; room temperature [24.6°C]; ocular surface temperature [34.5°C]). Three replicates for each sample at each temperature were obtained using a standard volume (0.5 mL) of each sample. The viscosity of each ocular lubricant was measured over the full range of shear rates allowed by the rheometer. RESULTS: The shear viscosity of the same ocular lubricant varied significantly among the three temperatures. In general, a higher temperature resulted in smaller viscosities than a lower temperature (an average of -48% relative change from 4.3°C to 24.6°C and -21% from 24.6°C to 34.5°C). At a constant temperature, the viscosity of an ocular lubricant over the studied shear rates can be well approximated by a power-law model. CONCLUSIONS: Rheological analysis revealed that the ocular lubricants exhibited shear-thinning behavior at the measured temperatures. Differences in the ocular lubricants' formulations and measured temperatures resulted in different viscosities. TRANSLATIONAL RELEVANCE: When prescribing eye drops, eye care professionals can select the optimal one for their patients by considering a variety of factors, including its rheological property at physiologically relevant shear rates and temperatures, which can improve residence time on the ocular surface, while ensuring appropriate comfort and vision. However, care must be taken when using the derived mathematical models in this study because the in vivo shear behavior of the ocular lubricants has not been examined and might show deviations from those reported when placed on the ocular surface.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".