Effect of Lens Base Curve on Subjective Comfort and Assessment of Fit with Silicone Hydrogel Continuous Wear Contact Lenses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT: Purpose. To study the effect of base curve on subjective comfort of silicone hydrogel extended wear lenses. Methods. Ninety‐five subjects were first trial fitted with 8.6‐mm base curve lotrafilcon A (Focus Night & Day) lenses and then with 8.4‐mm lenses only if poor subjective comfort or poor fit was present. Comfort and fit were assessed after 15 min. Subjects with discomfort or signs of poor fit were then trial fitted with 8.4‐mm lenses. Results. Of 190 eyes, 74.2% were fitted with 8.6‐mm lenses, and 23.7% required 8.4‐mm lenses. Two (2.1%) subjects could not be fitted with either base curve. Mean steep keratometry (K) reading for eyes dispensed with 8.6‐mm lenses was 43.88 D and 45.56 D for eyes dispensed in the 8.4‐mm lenses (p < 0.001). Conclusions. A clinically useful criterion showing the need for 8.4‐mm lenses was steep K of ≥45.50 D; 77% of these eyes required the steeper lens for good comfort and fit. Subjective discomfort with 8.6‐mm lenses was also a useful signal for the need of a steeper lens; mean comfort scores for those subjects rose from 6.33 with 8.6‐mm lenses to 9.44 with the 8.4‐mm lenses for eyes requiring the steeper lens (p < 0.001).
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".