Assessment of pranoprofen ophthalmic solution 0.1% application for non-infectious conjunctivitis in patients with symptoms of dry eye disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Dry eye disease (DED) can be caused by many factors and conditions.It is a multifactorial disease, in which ocular surface inflammation plays an important role in the pathogenesis.Aim of the study: To assess efficacy of pranoprofen ophthalmic solution 0.1% applied for treatment of non-infectious conjunctivitis in patients with symptoms of dry eye disease.Material and methods: Prospective, single-arm, open, noninterventional study.Near and distant best corrected visual acuity, intraocular pressure measurement with air-puff tonometer as well as Schirmer I test, bulbar hyperemia, conjunctival edema, tear break-up time (TBUT), cornea and conjunctival staining score and lid-parallel conjunctival folds (LIPCOF) were assessed.Slit lamp examination included anterior segment and fundus examination.Patients were treated with pranoprofen ophthalmic solution 0.1% 4 times a day for 2-4 weeks.Results: 13 patients were screened, and 12 fulfilled inclusion criteria.The most significant improvement was observed in the change of subjective dry eye symptoms reported by the patients (equal for all OSDI sections).Improvement was observed in conjunctival hyperemia as well as degree of conjunctival and corneal staining (Oxford scale).There was no change in TBUT and LIPCOF.There were two non-serious adverse events reported during the course of the study.Conclusions: Pranoprofen ophthalmic solution 0.1% is an effective and safe treatment for non-infectious conjunctivitis with mild to moderate dry eye symptoms.Add-on treatment with pranoprofen ophthalmic solution 0.1% greatly improved the patient's subjective symptoms (OSDI score).
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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".