Evaluation of the spectral transmittance of UV-absorbing disposable contact lenses.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Increasing evidence suggesting deleterious effects of ultraviolet radiation (UVR) on the eye has prompted manufacturers to develop UV-absorbing disposable contact lenses. The spectral transmittances of a sample of these lenses were measured in order to determine if they provide adequate protection from UVR. METHODS: Four types of UV-absorbing disposable lenses were studied (Acuvue [Vistakon, Jacksonville, FL], Precision UV [Wesley-Jessen, Des Plaines, IL], Specialty Sport [Specialty UltraVision, Sunnyvale, CA], and Surevue [Vistakon]). For comparison, a lens without UV-absorbing properties (Acuvue), a conventional soft lens (Permaflex UV [Cooper Vision, San Jose, CA]) and an RGP lens (Boston ES [Polymer Technology, Rochester, NY]) were also evaluated. The tested lens was placed in a silica wet cell filled with saline. Spectral transmittance was measured over the 200-800 nm waveband. RESULTS: Each disposable lens exhibited a transmittance window in the 240-320 nm waveband. Computing indices of protection factor and safe exposure duration allowed for the assessment of the level of protection afforded by each lens. Among disposable lenses studied, the Surevue performed best with a transmittance of less than 1% in the waveband 280-348 nm and the longest safe exposure duration, while the Specialty Sport had the highesttransmittance of UVB (290-315 nm). CONCLUSION: All UV-absorbing lenses studied provided a better level of protection from UVR exposure than lenses without UV absorber. These results will help the eyecare practitioner in prescribing the most appropriate UV-blocking lens for each patient.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".