Smart Contact Lenses in Ophthalmology: Innovations, Applications, and Future Prospects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Smart contact lenses represent a breakthrough in the intersection of medical science and innovative technology, offering transformative potential in ophthalmology. This review article delves into the technological underpinnings of smart contact lenses, emphasizing the current landscape and advancements in biosensors, power supply, biomaterials, and the transmission of ocular information. This review further applies new innovations to their emerging role in the diagnosis, monitoring, and management of various ocular conditions. Moreover, we explore the impact of technical innovations on the application of smart contact lenses in monitoring glaucoma, managing postoperative care, and dry eye syndrome, further elucidating the non-invasive nature of these devices in continuous ocular health monitoring. The therapeutic potential of smart contact lenses such as treatment through targeted drug delivery and the monitoring of inflammatory biomarkers is also highlighted. Despite promising advancements, the implementation of smart contact lenses faces technical, regulatory, and patient compliance challenges. This review synthesizes the recent advances to provide an outlook on the state of smart contact lens technology. Furthermore, we discuss future directions, focusing on potential technological enhancements and new applications within ophthalmology.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".