ORCID Profile
0000-0003-0061-5411
Current Organisation
Queensland University of Technology
Does something not look right? The information on this page has been harvested from data sources that may not be up to date. We continue to work with information providers to improve coverage and quality. To report an issue, use the Feedback Form.
Publisher: Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Date: 07-07-2021
DOI: 10.1371/JOURNAL.PONE.0254027
Abstract: Considering that time spent outdoors is protective for myopia, we investigated how ambient light levels reaching the eye varies across 9 outdoor and 4 indoor locations in 5 different environmental conditions. Illuminance (lux) was recorded using a lux meter under conditions of weather (sunny/cloudy), time of a day (7:00,10:00,13:00, and 16:00 hours), seasons (summer/winter), and sun protection (hat and cap) in outdoor and indoor locations. Nine outdoor locations were “open playground”, “under a translucent artificial-shade”, “under a porch facing east”, “under a porch facing south”, “under a big tree”, “between three buildings”, “within 4 buildings”, and “canopy”. As a ninth outdoor location, “Under a glass bowl” in the outdoor location was used as a simulation for “glass classroom model” and measurement was taken at the floor level only to determine in overall the illuminance conditions with glass covered on all sides. The 4 indoor locations included “room with multiple large windows”, “room with combination light source”, “room with multiple artificial lights”, and “room with single artificial light”. The overall median illuminance level (median Q1-Q3) recorded in 9 outdoor locations was 8 times higher than that of all indoor locations (1175 –5400 lux vs. 179 –333 lux). Highest illuminance in outdoor locations was recorded in “open playground” (9300 –16825 lux), followed by “under a translucent artificial shade (8180 –13300 lux) and the lowest in “within 4 buildings” (11 –20 lux). Illuminance under ‘Canopy’, ‘between three buildings’ and ‘within four buildings’ was similar to that of indoor locations ( lux). Time of the day, weather, season, sensor position and using sun protection did not alter illuminance to change from high to low level ( to lux). Among indoor locations, illuminance in “room with multiple large windows” crossed 1000 lux at a specific time points on both sunny and cloudy days. Illuminance levels in outdoors and indoors varied with location type, but not with other conditions. Given the variation in illuminance in different locations, and the impact it may have on myopia control, appropriate detailed recommendations seems necessary while suggesting time outdoors as an anti-myopia strategy to ensure desired outcomes.
Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Date: 31-05-2023
DOI: 10.1038/S41598-023-35696-2
Abstract: Timely identification of in iduals “at-risk” for myopia progression is the leading requisite for myopia practice as it aids in the decision of appropriate management. This study aimed to develop ‘myopia progression risk assessment score’ (MPRAS) based on multiple risk factors (10) to determine whether a myope is “at-risk” or “low-risk” for myopia progression. Two risk-score models (model-1: non-weightage, model-2: weightage) were developed. Ability of MPRAS to diagnose in idual “at-risk” for myopia progression was compared against decision of five clinicians in 149 myopes, aged 6–29 years. Using model-1 (no-weightage), further 7 sub-models were created with varying number of risk factors in decreasing step-wise manner (1a: 10 factors to 1g: 4 factors). In random eye analysis for model-1, the highest Youden’s J-index (0.63–0.65) led to the MPRAS cut-off score of 41.50–43.50 for 5 clinicians with a sensitivity ranging from 78 to 85% and specificity ranging from 79 to 87%. For this cut-off score, the mean area under the curve (AUC) between clinicians and the MPRAS model ranged from 0.89 to 0.90. Model-2 (weighted for few risk-factors) provided similar sensitivity, specificity, and AUC. Sub-model analysis revealed greater AUC with high sensitivity (89%) and specificity (94%) in model-1g that has 4 risk factors compared to other sub-models (1a–1f). All the MPRAS models showed good agreement with the clinician’s decision in identifying in iduals “at-risk” for myopia progression.
No related grants have been discovered for Shashank Kishore Bhandary.