Effects of Optical Zone Variation of High-Addition Multifocal Contact Lenses on the Global Flash Multifocal Electroretinography
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the retinal response to myopic defocus after the wear of soft multifocal contact lenses with high addition through electroretinography. METHODS: Twenty-seven participants meeting inclusion criteria were enrolled. Tropicamide 1% drops (2) were instilled. Participants were then fitted with three different contact lenses: a single-vision spherical lens (SE +3.00 D), L1, serving as a control, and two soft multifocal lens designs (SE +3.00 D/add +10 D), one with a central distance zone of 4.0 mm (L2) and one with a central distance zone of 7.0 mm (L3). A global flash multifocal electroretinography was performed. Direct component (DC) amplitude, DC peak time, induced component (IC) amplitude, and IC peak time were recorded. Waveforms were grouped into five concentric areas, covering from 0° to 24° of retinal eccentricity. Differences of L2/L3 versus L1 were analyzed with t tests. Finally, correlations were calculated between the percentage of defocus in the pupil area versus the electroretinography results. RESULTS: Results show that the DC amplitude, caused mainly by photoreceptors and bipolar cells, is not influenced by the design of the lenses. The IC amplitude, however, is significantly decreased when the lens with a smaller optical zone (L2) is worn. This significant difference only concerns the ring 5, which corresponds to a retinal eccentricity of 15.7° to 24.0°. CONCLUSION: Soft multifocal lens designs influence the peripheral retinal reaction to defocus. A larger treatment zone seems to significantly impact the retinal response to defocus between 15.7° and 24.0° of eccentricity from the macula.
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 | 0.004 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".