MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W63577946 · doi:10.15353/cjo.72.633

Patient and practitioner compliance with silicone hydrogel and daily disposable lens replacement in Canada

2010· article· en· W63577946 on OpenAlex

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.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian journal of optometry/CJO. Canadian journal of optometry · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOcular Surface and Contact Lens
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversité de MontréalUniversity of Waterloo
KeywordsMedicineSilicone hydrogelContact lensDemographicsOptometryLens (geology)Compliance (psychology)Ophthalmology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose: To assess current recommendations by optometrists for replacement frequency (RF) of silicone hydrogels (SH) and daily disposable (DD) contact lenses in Canada, determine rates of non-compliance with recommendations by both the optometrist and patient, and investigate reasons for non-compliance. Methods: Survey packages were sent to optometrists in Canada who had agreed to participate. Patients completed survey questions regarding demographics and contact lens wearing patterns, including recommended and actual contact lens RF. Optometrists were asked to provide lens information and their recommendation for RF. Fifty-eight optometrists returned 654 surveys, of which 578 were eligible for analysis. Results: Seventy percent of patients were female with a median age of 32 years. Lens type distribution was 18% DD, 35% two-week SH, and 47% one-month SH. Six percent were worn for extended wear. Daily wear median wearing time was 12 hours/day, a median of five days/week for DD, seven days/week for SH (two-week and one-month). Optometrists’ recommendations were non-compliant with the manufacturers’ recommended RF for 6% of DD, 35% of two week, and 2% of one-month patients. Patients were non-compliant with recommendations from both the manufacturer and optometrist for 12% of DD, 43% of two-week, and 31% of one-month lens wearers. The most common reason for non-compliance was forgetting which day to replace lenses. Fifty-six percent thought a reminder system would help with compliance. A higher proportion of compliant patients followed the RF because of confidence in their optometrist. Conclusions: Optometrists generally recommended RFs consistent with manufacturers’ recommendations for DD and one-month SH lenses but often recommended longer intervals for two-week SH lenses. Patients were most compliant when wearing DD lenses and least compliant when wearing two-week SH lenses. Communication between the patient and optometrists concerning the risks of non-compliance, or initiating a reminder system might improve compliance.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.385
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.246 · 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