Is There Any Association between Nutrition and Myopia? A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
SIGNIFICANCE: This systematic review highlights the possible role of nutrition in myopia based on qualitative analysis of vast and diverse literature that investigated this association. PURPOSE: We systematically reviewed the outcomes of the studies that previously investigated the association between nutrition and myopia. METHODS: EMBASE, MEDLINE, and PubMed were searched by two independent authors to identify cross-sectional, cohort, retrospective, or interventional studies that assessed the association of nutrition with myopia from inception to the year 2021. Furthermore, the reference list of the included articles was screened. The data from the included studies were extracted, and qualitative analysis was performed. Quality assessment for noninterventional studies and interventional trials was performed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and Cochrane RoB 2, respectively. RESULTS: Twenty-seven articles were included in the review. Most of the nutrients and dietary elements investigated in noninterventional studies showed inconsistencies in their association with myopia, with the majority indicating no association. Nine studies showed a significant association of diverse nutrients and dietary elements with either an increase (odds ratio, 1.07) or a decrease (odds ratio, 0.5 to 0.96) in the risk of myopia development. However, a majority of these studies have minimal odds ratios with wider or overlapping confidence intervals, implicating weaker associations. All three nutrients and dietary elements assessed in the interventional trial had implications for myopia control, with two trials indicating a clinically minimal effect. CONCLUSIONS: This review implies that there is some evidence to indicate a potential influence of specific nutrients and dietary elements in myopia development, which are supported by several theories. However, given the vast, diverse, and complex nature of nutrition, more systematic investigation is warranted to comprehend the extent to which these specific nutrients and dietary elements are associated with myopia through longitudinal studies by subduing the limitations in the existing literature.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Review About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Systematic review | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Review About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Systematic review | high |
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
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".