The roles of neural adaptation and sensitization in contact lens discomfort
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To investigate the roles of neural adaptation and sensitization in contact lens discomfort (CLD). METHODS: Cooling stimuli (20 °C) were applied to the cornea in a group comprising 24 symptomatic and 25 asymptomatic contact lens (CL) wearers as well as 15 non-CL wearing controls, using a computerized Belmonte esthesiometer. The adaptation paradigm consisted of 20 repetitive stimuli at threshold, sub- and supra-threshold levels. The sensitization paradigm involved five levels of suprathreshold stimuli ranging between 1x to 2x threshold. Following each stimulus, participants rated the sensation magnitude regarding intensity, coolness and irritation. Measurements were taken with habitual CL (BL_CL), after 2 weeks of no-CL (No_CL) and after restarting habitual CL wear (ReSt_CL). RESULTS: The symptomatic subjects exhibited a lower threshold but reported enhanced sensations during the adaptation and sensitization paradigm, compared to the asymptomatic and control groups (all p ≤ 0.021). At the BL_CL and ReSt_CL visits, they showed increased ratings to repeated subthreshold stimuli (p = 0.025) and greater irritation during the sensitization paradigm (p ≤ 0.032). Ratings in asymptomatic and control groups were relatively unchanged over time (p ≥ 0.181). Logistic regression revealed a link between the augmented sensory responses and increased likelihood with CLD. CONCLUSION: The maladaptive sensory responses seen in CLD subjects, with reduced adaptation and heightened sensitization to ocular surface stimulation, suggest an imbalance between sensitization and adaptation in CLD. As CLD may represent a reversible subcategory of dry eye, it can serve as a human dry eye model for studying the neurosensory effect of ocular surface stimulation.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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 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".