Six years of wearer experience in children participating in a myopia control study of MiSight® 1 day
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the experience of children wearing soft contact lenses (CLs) during a trial of MiSight® 1 day (omafilcon A, CooperVision, Inc.), a dual-focus myopia-control daily disposable CL. METHODS: A 3-year, double-masked, randomised trial (Part 1) comparing experiences with MiSight 1 day and a single-vision control (Proclear® 1 day, omafilcon A, CooperVision, Inc.) of neophyte, myopic children (ages 8-12). Treatment (n = 65) and control (n = 70) participants received lenses at sites in Canada, Portugal, Singapore, and the UK. Successful participants completing Part 1 were invited to continue for a further 3 years wearing the dual-focus CL (Part 2), and 85 participants completed the 6-year study. Children and parent questionnaires were conducted at baseline, 1 week, 1 month, and every 6 months until the 60-month visit, with children only also completing questionnaires at 66 and 72 months. RESULTS: Throughout the study, children reported high satisfaction with handling (≥89% top 2 box [T2B]), comfort (≥94% T2B), vision (≥93% T2B for various activities), and overall satisfaction (≥97% T2B). Ratings for comfort and vision were not significantly different between lens groups, visits, or study parts and did not change when children switched to dual-focus CLs. Ratings for 'really easy' or 'kind of easy' application improved from the outset for the neophytes (57% at 1-week follow-up and 85% at 1-month follow-up) and remained high throughout the study (visit: P = 0.007; part: P = 0.0004). Overall satisfaction improved in Part 2 (P = 0.04). Wearing times increased in Part 2 (14 vs. 13 hrs/weekday; 13 vs. 12 hrs/day on weekends; P < 0.001); there were no differences between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Children adapted rapidly to full-time wear, rated lenses highly, and rarely reported issues. The dual-focus optics included in the MiSight® 1 day lenses successfully achieved myopia control without lowering subjective ratings when fitted to neophytes or children refitted from single-vision CLs.
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) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".