Performance of Delefilcon A Daily Disposable Contact Lenses in a Group of Digital Device Users
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: To assess the performance of delefilcon A daily disposable contact lenses (CL) in lens wearers who reported heavy digital device use. Patients and Methods: This prospective study involved lens wearers who used digital devices ≥8 hours per day. Delefilcon A CL were dispensed for 2-weeks, to be worn ≥5 days/week, ≥13 hours/day, using digital devices as normal. At-home questionnaires rating comfort, dryness, and clarity of vision (0-100 scale, 100=best) were completed on Days 1, 7, and 14±1 upon insertion, after 8 hours of device use, and before removal. At the Day 14 visit, participants rated overall comfort, dryness, and vision (0-100 scale) and completed a 5-point Likert-type scale questionnaire. Results: Thirty-five participants were eligible, 32 completed (27 females; age: 25.3±6.3 years). Median at-home ratings for comfort, dryness, and vision were ≥85, with no difference between days (all p≥0.09). Ratings decreased throughout the day (p≤0.005), except comfort (Day 7) and vision (Days 1 and 7), where ratings before removal were similar to 8 hours of device use (p≥0.014). After 2-weeks, median (range) overall ratings for comfort, dryness, and vision were 96 (70-100), 93 (50-100), and 95 (75-100), respectively. Most agreed the CL performed well, providing good comfort (91%) and vision all-day-long (94%), and did not have dryness with device use (69%). When devices were used ≥8 hours, most felt the CL performed well (84%), were satisfied with comfort (88%) and vision (88%), did not experience eye strain (81%), eye fatigue (66%), or episodes of blurred vision (75%). Conclusion: Delefilcon A lenses provided high satisfaction levels among lens wearers who spent a significant portion of their day using digital devices. Participants rated the CL highly for comfort and vision throughout the day, with most reporting no issues with dryness, eye strain, or blurred vision while wearing lenses and using digital devices.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".