Profound vision loss impairs psychological well-being in young and middle-aged individuals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Giancarlo A Garcia,1,2 Matin Khoshnevis,1,3 Jesse Gale,1,4 Starleen E Frousiakis,1,5 Tiffany J Hwang,1,6 Lissa Poincenot,1 Rustum Karanjia,1,7–9 David Baron,6 Alfredo A Sadun1,7 1Doheny Eye Institute, Los Angeles, CA, USA; 2University of California, Irvine School of Medicine, Irvine, CA, USA; 3Department of Ophthalmology, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA, USA; 4Wellington School of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Otago, Wellington, NZ; 5Department of Ophthalmology, New York Medical College, Valhalla, NY, USA; 6Department of Psychiatry & The Behavioral Sciences, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA; 7Doheny Eye Centers, Department of Ophthalmology, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles California, CA, USA; 8Department of Ophthalmology, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada; 9Ottawa Hospital Health Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada Purpose: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of profound vision loss on psychological well-being in adolescents, young adults, and middle-aged adults with regard to mood, interpersonal interactions, and career-related goals. In addition, we assessed the significance of the resources that may be used to enhance psychological well-being in cases of profound vision loss, and in particular, examined the utility of low vision aids and the role of the ophthalmologist as a provider of emotional support.Methods: A questionnaire was issued to individuals aged 13–65 years with profound vision loss resulting from Leber’s hereditary optic neuropathy (LHON). Depression prevalence was evaluated with questions regarding major depressive disorder symptomatology. Participants appraised the effects of vision loss on their interpersonal interactions and career goals by providing an impact rating (IR) on a 21-point psychometric scale from −10 to +10. Social well-being index was defined as the average of interpersonal IR and career IR. Subjects were additionally asked about the use of low vision aids and sources of emotional support.Results: A total of 103 participants (mean age =26.4±11.2 years at LHON diagnosis; mean ± standard deviation) completed the questionnaire. Nearly half (49.5%) met the depression criteria after vision loss. Negative impacts on interpersonal interactions (median IR = -5) and career goals (median IR = −6) were observed; both ratings were worse (P<0.001) for depressed versus nondepressed subjects. Older age at diagnosis corresponded to higher depression prevalence and increased incidence of negative interpersonal IR and career IR. Sixty-eight percent of subjects used electronic vision aids; controlling for age, social well-being index was higher among these individuals than for those who did not use electronic aids (P=0.03). Over half of the participants (52.4%) asserted that they derived emotional support from their ophthalmologist.Conclusion: Profound vision loss in adolescents, young adults, and middle-aged adults is associated with significant negative psychological and psychosocial effects, which are influenced by age and use of electronic vision aids. Ophthalmologists, in addition to managing vision loss, may serve an important role in the emotional adaptation of these patients. Keywords: vision loss, psychological, depression, low vision aids, quality of life, Leber’s hereditary optic neuropathy
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".