Evaluating the Performance of Verofilcon A Daily Disposable Contact Lenses in a Group of Heavy Digital Device Users
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the performance of verofilcon A daily disposable contact lenses (CL) in CL wearers who identified themselves as heavy digital device users. Patients and Methods: This prospective, non-masked, open-label study enrolled CL wearers who reported ≥6 hours digital device use per day. Participants were dispensed with the verofilcon A study lenses for 14±2 days, to be worn for at least 5 days a week and 10 hours per day, while continuing their normal routine of digital device use. Participants rated the lens performance at the Day 14 visit using a 0-100 (with 100 being best) scale. Ratings were completed at lens insertion, after 6 hours of digital device use, just before CL removal and for overall experience. Participants also completed a 4-point (strongly agree/disagree, slightly agree/disagree) Likert scale-based questionnaire. Results: Thirty-two participants were eligible and completed the study (27 females; age 25.8 ± 6.0 years, ranging from 19 to 40). Overall lens performance ratings at the Day 14 visit (mean ± standard deviation) for comfort, dryness, and clarity of vision were 91 ± 11, 88 ± 11, and 92 ± 9, respectively. Subjective ratings were stable throughout the day with no significant differences after insertion, after 6 hours of digital device use and before CL removal (all p>0.05). The majority of participants agreed that the study lenses performed well, provided good all-day comfort (28/32; p<0.01) and good all-day vision (29/32; p<0.01). Participants also agreed that after ≥6 hours of digital device use they were satisfied with CL comfort (27/32; p<0.01), vision (29/32; p<0.01) and that the lenses provided good performance (26/32; p<0.01). Conclusion: Verofilcon A lenses were found to perform well, with high ratings for comfort, dryness and vision that remained high throughout the day, during extensive digital device use.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".