Optical characterisation and vision quality assessment of two myopia control contact lenses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".