In Vivo Wettability of HydraGlyde® Silicone Hydrogel Lens With and Without HydraGlyde® Containing Lens Care Solution
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Contact lens care solutions are readily available over-the-counter at any pharmacy, optical shop, or eye care specialist centers. The use of a non-compatible solution may damage or alter the material of the contact lens, and may cause changes in the efficiency of the lens, thereby reducing comfort of the wearer. Hence, this research was carried out to determine the wettability of HydraGlyde® Silicone Hydrogel lens with and without HydraGlyde® containing lens care solutions. The right eye of 25 subjects (mean age: 22.8 ± 1.3 years old) were studied. The subjects needed to come for two visits [1 week apart] at approximately the same time of the day. Each subject received the pre-soaked lenses with and without HydraGlyde® Moisture Matrix randomly. The subjects wore the lenses for 8 h. Non-Invasive Tear Breakup Time (NIKBUT) was measured using OCULUS® Keratograph 5M, followed by a subjective questionnaire response.Parametric paired t-test showed no significant differences in PLTF NIKBUT baseline (16.25 ± 3.75 s)and after 8 h of lens wear (15.02 ± 3.81 s) when lenses soaked in a solution with HydraGlyde® Moisture Matrix (p > 0.05). However, a significant difference was found in PLTF NIKBUT baseline (16.16 ± 2.79 s), and after 8 h of lens wear (14.74 ± 3.73 s) when lenses were soaked in a solution without HydraGlyde® Moisture Matrix (p < 0.05). The change in the PLTF NIKBUT baseline and after 8 h of lens wear for the solution with and without HydraGlyde® Moisture Matrix (−1.23 ± 3.89 s and 1.68 ± 3.58 s respectively) were not statistically significant (p > 0.05). The subjective questionnaire revealed a preference towards a solution with HydraGlyde® Moisture Matrix with a mean score of 68.84 ± 15.36% compared to without HydraGlyde® Moisture Matrix with a mean score of 62.80 ± 14.00% (p < 0.05). A lens care solution con-taining HydraGlyde® Moisture Matrix is advised to be prescribed along with HydraGlyde® silicone hydrogel lens to achieve optimum lens performance.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".