Investigation of Delefilcon A Contact Lenses for Symptomatic Daily Disposable Contact Lens Wearers with Dry Eye Disease: A Prospective Comparative Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: This prospective comparative study aimed to assess the effects on contact lens comfort, dryness, and wear time when symptomatic daily disposable (DD) contact lens (CL) wearers were refit with delefilcon A (DT1) lenses. Patients and Methods: Thirty five symptomatic DD CL wearers with dry eye disease as determined according to the TFOS DEWS 2 guidelines, were enrolled and completed the study. Participants wore their habitual DD CLs during an initial assessment and were subsequently refit with DT1 for 1 month. Participants were masked to the study lens type. Subjective ratings of end-of-day comfort and dryness, average wear time, and comfortable wear time were evaluated as primary endpoints. Results: Of the 35 participants, two participants were classified as aqueous deficient dry eye, while the remaining participants exhibited symptoms primarily due to evaporative causes. The median CLDEQ-8 score for dryness significantly improved from 17 (fair) with habitual lenses to 13 (good) with DT1 lenses (p < 0.01). Participants reported significantly better end-of-day comfort (p = 0.01) and less end-of-day dryness (p = 0.01) with DT1 compared to their habitual DD lenses. The comfortable wear time was significantly longer with DT1 (8.5 ± 4.1 hours) compared to habitual DD lenses (6.7 ± 3.2 hours) (p = 0.04). No significant differences were observed in vision ratings (p = 0.07). Conclusion: Refitting symptomatic DD CL wearers with DT1 resulted in improved end-of-day comfort, reduced end-of-day dryness, and extended comfortable wear time compared to their habitual lenses. These findings suggest that DT1 may offer benefits for symptomatic DD wearers with dry eye disease.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".