The Impact of Comfort Eluting Agents and Replacement Frequency on Enhancing Contact Lens Performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Chau-Minh Phan,1,2 Alex Hui,1,3 Xinfeng Charlie Shi,4 Ying Zheng,4 Lakshman N Subbaraman,4 James Wu,4 Lyndon Jones1,2 1Centre for Ocular Research & Education (CORE), School of Optometry and Vision Science, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Canada; 2Centre for Eye and Vision Research (CEVR), Science Park, Hong Kong; 3School of Optometry and Vision Science, Faculty of Medicine and Health, UNSW Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia; 4Alcon Research LLC, Fort Worth, TX, USACorrespondence: Chau-Minh Phan, Email c2phan@uwaterloo.caAbstract: This review explores the development and clinical implications of soft contact lenses designed to elute comfort agents, emphasizing their role in enhancing user experience and ocular health. As discomfort remains one of the primary reasons for discontinuation of lens wear, this concept aims to address this challenge by gradually releasing these agents over their period of use. This review also explores the effectiveness, safety, and user satisfaction associated with frequent replacement schedules of these lenses. Clinical trials demonstrate that lenses with eluting comfort agents significantly reduce dryness and irritation, leading to improved wear-time and overall comfort. The findings suggest that frequent replacement not only enhances lens hygiene but also maximizes the therapeutic benefits of the eluted agents, promoting a healthier ocular environment. The implications for practice highlight a shift towards more patient-centered approaches in contact lens design and management, aiming to improve adherence and satisfaction among users. This research paves the way for future innovations in contact lens technology, focusing on personalized solutions that cater to individual comfort needs.Keywords: comfort, contact lens, replacement frequency, wettability
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".