DISPOSABLE LENSES IN SATISFIED REUSABLE SOFT CONTACT LENS WEARERS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Soft contact lens wearers are often prescribed the same lens material and modality for multiple years if patients express satisfaction and no significant problems with lens fit or ocular health are noted upon evaluation. Despite their satisfaction, it is possible that other lenses exist that could provide additional health or convenience benefits and still provide satisfied lens wear experience. Methods: In this study, wearers of a specific monthly replacement lens brand (comfilcon A) were recruited for an open-label study. The habitual contact lens prescription was optimized for 2 weeks of wear and participants confirmed that they were satisfied with their habitual lenses before being refit with daily disposable lenses (verofilcon A). Participants responded to visual analog scale (VAS) survey about their initial impressions of the lenses. After 2 weeks of lens wear, participants completed a final study visit and completed surveys about lens wear experiences with the daily disposable study lenses. Results: Fifteen male and 15 female participants completed the study. Median (IQR) binocular LogMAR visual acuity was -0.20(0.12), which is equivalent to 10/12.5 Snellen acuity. Initial impression surveys revealed median (interquartile range) of 92.5(22.3) for quality of vision; 95.0(19.3) for comfort; and 91.5(19.3) for satisfaction. At the final visit, median scores for EOD quality of vision was 86.5(24.0); EOD comfort was 84.5(30.3), and EOD dryness 25.5(47.0). Median overall VAS scores were 92.5(16.0) for vision; 88.0(18.3) for comfort, and 17.5(25.8) for dryness. Median satisfaction with the study lenses was scored 9(2.8) on a 1-10 scale. Conclusions: In this study, satisfied wearers of comfilcon A reusable lens were refit with Verofilcon A daily disposable lenses and showed high satisfaction scores with the new lenses, showing that refitting these patients can allow patients to have lenses with more frequent replacement and maintain satisfaction with daily lens wear.
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 | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".