A Pilot Study on Corneal Molding Speed as a Function of Oxygen Permeability of Lens Materials in Orthokeratology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE : This study was conducted to evaluate the impact of varying lens oxygen transmis-sibility (DK) on corneal molding speed, after short-term orthokeratology (OK) lens wear. METHODS: This is a pilot prospective randomised study. Participants (aged 8–15) were seen during four visits over 3 days and were fitted with lens 1 (DK100) or lens 2 (DK180), randomly assigned. From topographic tangential differential maps, treatment zone diameter (TZD), mid-peripheral power (MPP) and width (MPW) were extracted. The total high-order aberrations (HOAs), spherical aberrations and coma were measured (5 mm diameter). RESULTS: Twelve participants were enrolled (-4.35 ± 0.89D OD; -4.18 ± 0.88 OS). At day 1, L1 corrected 60% of the refractive error, and 73% by day 3 (p=0.003), compared to 73%/97% with L2 (p=0.021). The HOAs increased significantly with both lenses after 1 and 3 days (p=0.003; p=0.036). The TZD reached 25% of the pupil area with no significant difference between the two lenses at day 1(p=0.869) or 3 (p=0.429). The MPW did not vary significantly between lenses with time. However MPP was sa-tistically significant with L2 at Day 3. (p=0.020).CONCLUSION: Using a higher DK material re-sulted in faster refractive error correction and higher mid-peripheral power generated during the first 3 days of OK lens wear.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".