Could outdoor activities protect children from myopia? : a literature review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: \nOver the last fifty years, the prevalence of myopia in children, adolescents and young adults (defined here as person up to 25 years old) dramatically rises throughout the world, especially in East Asia, such as China, Singapore, South Korea, Japan as well as Taiwan. For the sake of finding the cause and prevention of the epidemic of myopia, the environmental factor –time spent outdoors seems potentially beneficial to against epidemic myopia. Therefore, recently, more and more studies focus on the evidence of its potential protective effect on myopia. \n \nObjective: \nSummarizing and assessing the evidence of whether outdoor activities could protect children, adolescents and young adults from myopia, and establishing further purposes of later studies, especially for clinical trials \n \nMethods: \nRelevant observational studies were identified by searching on the online database, PubMed and Web of Science. The evidence of protective effect was extracted and summarized. All the included studies were assessed by Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) quality assessment. \n \nResults: \nSixteen observational studies included (5 cohort and 11 cross-sectional studies). The most of the studies concluded that outdoor activities consistently inversely assiocated with myopia development. \n \nConclusion: \nIn this review, most of observational studies provided epidemiological and statistical evidence on the protective effect of time outdoors to the development of myopia. Therefore, this association is consistent and robust. However, we should also focus on the effect of the progression of myopia as well, which is still unclear and the result varies and inconsistent. The further studies are required to establish, such as interventional studies and find the association between progression of myopia and outdoor activities.
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 | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".