MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410124445 · doi:10.1111/opo.13521

Optical characterisation and vision quality assessment of two myopia control contact lenses

2025· article· en· W4410124445 on OpenAlex
Josh Richards, Matt Jaskulski, Jill Woods, Sarah Guthrie, Pete Kollbaum

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueOphthalmic and Physiological Optics · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOphthalmology and Visual Impairment Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersCooperVision
KeywordsCoaxialOpticsLens (geology)Contact lensOptical transfer functionWavefrontOptometryVisual acuityRay tracing (physics)Computer sciencePhysicsMedicineTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: This investigation examined the image and vision quality of two commercially available daily disposable myopia control soft contact lenses. METHODS: Wavefront errors were measured with an SHS Ophthalmic aberrometer for two myopia control soft contact lenses: a coaxially designed dual-focus lens (omafilcon A, CooperVision MiSight® 1 day, MS1d) and a design employing multiple add powers that included non-coaxial optics in annular add zones (senofilcon A, Johnson & Johnson Vision ACUVUE® Abiliti™ 1-Day, AB). Geometric optics ray tracing generated point-spread functions and wave optics were used to compare modulation transfer functions (MTFs) and simulated letter images. Twenty-six myopic children completed a randomised, non-dispensing, contralateral double-masked clinical trial. After 1 h of wear, right and left eye visual acuity (VA), subjective vision quality and lens preference (Likert) were assessed while viewing monocularly. RESULTS: The lens containing non-coaxial optics employed a small central zone with approximately +10.00 D of added power and two annular rings with a power gradient typical of non-coaxial optics. The coaxial design contained a centre zone with a distance correction and two annular zones with a fixed add power of approximately +2.00 D. MTFs and simulated images were better with small pupils, which was most noticeable with the coaxial design. Distance VA was -0.02 ± 0.04 with MS1d and 0.09 ± 0.08 with AB, p < 0.01. The majority of participants (77%) reported a preference for one lens; 54% preferred the MS1d and 23% preferred the AB lens. CONCLUSIONS: Myopia control contact lenses employing coaxial or a mixture of coaxial and non-coaxial optics both reduced retinal image contrast but successfully imaged high spatial frequencies and provided high quality of vision. Image and vision quality were slightly superior in the lens employing coaxial optics alone.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.322
Threshold uncertainty score0.430

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.067
GPT teacher head0.453
Teacher spread0.386 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it