A two-week clinical evaluation of the safety of Systane® Ultra in contact lens-wearing patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
David KadingSpecialty Eyecare Group, Kirkland, WA, USAObjective: To evaluate the safety of Systane® Ultra Lubricant Eye Drops (test solution) in contact lens wearers. A currently marketed contact lens rewetting drop was the control solution.Participants: This investigator- and patient-masked, single-site, randomized, and prospective study involved 45 successful contact lens wearers.Methods: Eligible subjects’ baseline biomicroscopy findings, visual acuity, and corneal staining score were recorded. Subjects received either the test or control solution with masked labeling. Subjects were instructed to instill their assigned solution in both eyes: 15 minutes prior to lens insertion, at least one drop during lens wear and another drop immediately following lens removal. After 14 days, biomicroscopy results, visual acuity, and corneal staining score were recorded.Results: No adverse events were documented for either the test or the control solution. For subjects using Systane® Ultra, no statistically significant change was detected in visual acuity (= 0.7667) or corneal staining score (P = 1.000). For subjects using the control solution, the change in visual acuity (P = 0.0011, mean difference = 1.70 ± 3.22 standard deviation) was not clinically relevant and there was no significant change in corneal staining score (P = 0.5413).Conclusions: This clinical study provided evidence of safety and compatibility of Systane® Ultra Lubricant Eye Drops in contact lens wearers.Keywords: lubricant eye drop, contact lens, safety, dry eye
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".