Antiviral activity of contact lens care solutions and rub‐and‐rinse regimen against adenovirus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
SIGNIFICANCE: Although human adenoviruses are the leading cause of acute viral conjunctivitis, there is a lack of data surrounding the efficacy of contact lens care products against these viruses. PURPOSE: This study investigates the antiviral activity of several commercially available contact lens care solutions against human adenovirus type 5 (Ad5). METHODS: Six contact lens care solutions (Biotrue, Boston Simplus, OPTI-FREE Puremoist, Clear Care, cleadew, and cleadew GP) were investigated. Quantitative suspensions tests were conducted on Ad5 solutions after interaction with the different contact lens care solutions for 4 or 6 hours. For the hydrogen peroxide solution (Clear Care), interaction times of 0, 2, 4, and 6 hours prior to neutralization were also investigated. Finally, the impact of rubbing and rinsing of Ad5 contaminated contact lenses with the solutions was studied. RESULTS: Solutions based on povidone-iodine demonstrated a more than 3-log reduction in virus after 4 and 6 hours of incubation. In contrast, hydrogen peroxide only demonstrated a 0.52-log reduction after 6 hours of incubation. Increasing the contact time with hydrogen peroxide increased Ad5 inactivation, with a 2.18-log reduction after 6 hours of incubation with the solution prior to neutralization. Nonoxidative systems did not demonstrate a significant log reduction after 4 hours of incubation. However, rubbing and rinsing of contact lenses using the nonoxidative systems reduced the virus counts from contaminated contact lenses to below the limit of quantification. CONCLUSIONS: Povidone-iodine solutions have a significant effect on reducing the viability of Ad5. Hydrogen peroxide care solutions are effective only if unneutralized contact time is increased. Nonoxidative systems can be effective in combating contaminated lenses only with the addition of a rub-and-rinse step.
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".