{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.04482323232323232, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0025252525252525255, 'mean_word_length': 4.763636363636364, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Comparative evaluation of surface deposits on high water content hydrogel contact lens polymers.

Twenty soft contact lens wearers were fit with a high water content, non-HEMA (ofilcon A) lens (Durasoft 4; Wesley-Jessen) on the test eye. Patients subsequently wore one of the following four lenses on the same eye: a high-water content non-HEMA (surfilcon A) lens (Permaflex 74; CooperVision); a modified mid-water content HEMA (bufilcon A) lens (Hydrocurve Elite; Sola/Barnes-Hind); a low-water content HEMA (polymacon) lens (O4; Bausch & Lomb); or a low-water content non-HEMA (crofilcon A) lens (CSI; Sola/Barnes-Hind). All lenses were worn on a daily wear basis for one month and then evaluated with the scanning electron microscope (SEM). The amount of surface deposition was measured in terms of the area of lens covered by deposit as visualized on a standard series of SEM photographs. When control was obtained for patient, eye, technique, care system, and wearing time, similar amounts of deposit were found on the two high water content soft lenses. A significantly greater amount of deposit was found on the non-HEMA high water content ofilcon A lens compared to the mid-water content modified HEMA material. However, when the patient's tendency to produce "heavy" or "light" deposits on a soft lens surface is taken into account, then for the lighter depositors the high water content non-HEMA material was found to be as acceptable as the low water content HEMA and non-HEMA materials. But for heavy depositors the high water content non-HEMA material is not recommended.