Impact of Lighting Assessment and Optimization on Participation and Quality of Life in Individuals with Vision Loss
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This pilot study was designed to investigate the effects of a holistic lighting intervention on the quality of life for individuals with low vision. Sixty participants (44 women; median age 69 years) with visual impairment received lighting interventions, including a home visit and consultation in a lighting lab. Assisted by low vision consultants, participants evaluated their performance using the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM) before and after the intervention. Improvements in visual functioning and quality of life were evaluated using the 39-item National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire (NEI VFQ-39), the Groffman Visual Tracing Test, and the Farnsworth Dichotomous Test (D15). Following the lighting intervention, scores improved for all activities in the COPM (p < 0.01), for near activities and vision-specific role difficulties in the VFQ-39 (p < 0.05), and overall in the D15 test (p < 0.05). These results suggest the intervention provided an effective method for improving the participants’ quality of life and performance.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".