Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 371

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

The Effect of Ambient Illuminance on the Development of Deprivation Myopia in Chicks

Ashby, Regan, Ohlendorf, Arne, Schaeffel, Frank·2009·Investigative Opthalmology & Visual Science

Abstract

PURPOSE: Recent epidemiologic studies have shown that children who spend a higher proportion of time outdoors are less likely to develop myopia. This study was undertaken to investigate whether light levels may be a relevant factor in the development of myopia. METHODS; Paradigm 1: Chicks were fitted with translucent diffusers for 5 days, with the diffusers removed daily for 15 minutes under one of three lighting conditions: (1) normal laboratory lighting (500 lux), (2) intense laboratory lighting (15,000 lux), or (3) daylight (30,000 lux). A control group, which continuously wore diffusers, was also kept under an illumination of 500 lux. Paradigm 2: Chicks fitted with translucent diffusers were raised for 4 days under one of three lighting conditions: (1) low laboratory lighting (50 lux, n = 9), (2) normal laboratory lighting (500 lux, n = 18), or (3) intense laboratory lights (15,000 lux, n = 9). In groups 1 and 3, the chicks were exposed to either low or high ambient illuminances for a period of 6 hours per day (10 AM-4 PM), but were kept under 500 lux for the remaining time of the light phase. Axial length and refraction were measured at the commencement and cessation of all treatments, with corneal curvature measured additionally in paradigm 2. RESULTS: Paradigm 1: The chicks exposed daily to sunlight for 15 minutes had significantly shorter eyes (8.81 +/- 0.05 mm; P < 0.01) and less myopic refractions (-1.1 +/- 0.45 D; P < 0.01) than did the chicks that had their diffusers removed under normal laboratory light levels (8.98 +/- 0.03 mm, -5.3 +/- 0.5 D). If the diffusers were removed under intense laboratory lights, the chicks also developed shorter eyes (8.88 +/- 0.04 mm; P < 0.01) and less myopic refractions (-3.4 +/- 0.6D; P < 0.01). Paradigm 2: The chicks that wore diffusers continuously under high illuminance had shorter eyes (8.54 +/- 0.02 mm; P < 0.01) and less myopic refractions (+0.04 +/- 0.7D; P < 0.001) compared with those chicks reared under normal light levels (8.64 +/- 0.06 mm, -5.3 +/- 0.9 D). Low illuminance (50 lux) did not further increase deprivation myopia. CONCLUSIONS: Exposing chicks to high illuminances, either sunlight or intense laboratory lights, retards the development of experimental myopia. These results, in conjunction with recent epidemiologic findings, suggest that daily exposure to high light levels may have a protective effect against the development of school-age myopia in children.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1167/iovs.09-3419

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Ashby, R., Ohlendorf, A., & Schaeffel, F.
Venue
Investigative Opthalmology & Visual Science
Published
2009-11-01
Volume
50
Issue
11
Pages
5348
ISSN
  • 0146-0404 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-5783
OpenAlex
W2051961090
Cited by
371
References
0
FWCI
7.20
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.