Relationships Between Success Factors in Daily Disposable Multifocal Contact Lenses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: To explore links between subjective comfort and vision in habitual multifocal soft contact lens (MFCL) wearers when refit with daily disposable MFCLs, to determine which factors are relevant for success with MFCLs and evaluate consistency between MFCLs of different designs. Patients and Methods: This work examined subjective measures in a randomised, participant masked, bilateral wear crossover study at five optometry practices. Fifty-eight habitual MFCL wearers wore stenfilcon A multifocal (stenA-MF; CooperVision Inc) and delefilcon A multifocal (delA-MF; Alcon) for two-weeks. Subjective ratings included satisfaction with comfort and vision and agreement questions. Results: Agreement with "I would like to wear this MFCL in the future" was taken to indicate success with each MFCL; agreement was significantly higher with stenA-MF. There was strong correlation between agreement responses for "I would like to wear this MFCL in the future" and "MFCL met my needs for vision" with both lenses (p<0.01). However, it was only with stenA-MF, which had higher agreement responses to both statements (p<0.05), that responses to these two statements correlated with satisfaction with end-of-day (EOD) comfort (p<0.01). These differences in correlations between the two lenses are seemingly driven by greater satisfaction with stenA-MF for near and intermediate vision (p<0.05). Conclusion: Subjective vision and comfort were only correlated when vision met the needs of most participants. Meeting participants' needs for vision correlated strongly with wanting to wear a MFCL. Results indicate that meeting vision needs is more important than meeting comfort needs when influencing whether presbyopic patients continue wearing MFCLs.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 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".