Assessing the Effects of Polychromatic Light Exposure on Heart Rate in Healthy Adults: A Systematic Review Contrasting α-Opic Equivalent Daylight Illuminances
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Part of a series aimed at gathering all studies assessing the effects of polychromatic light on mood, physiology, and cognition, this systematic review investigated the effects of polychromatic (white) light exposure on heart rate. High melanopic equivalent daylight illuminance (EDI) was hypothesized to be more strongly associated with fast heart rate than other α-opic EDIs. This effect was predicted to be more evident during the morning. A larger literature search identified 3,548 articles, of which 10 reported heart rate and were included in the current report. The spectral power distribution, illuminance, heart rate means, and core methods for each article were documented. Using the luox app, α-opic EDIs were calculated for each of the five photoreceptors to characterize the light exposures in each study. Regression models were applied to determine how α-opic EDI, duration, and timing related to heart rate. Results showed that none of the five α-opic EDIs were significantly associated with heart rate (all estimates < 4.21e−3, p > .119). Light exposure in the morning (all estimates > |–6.40e−2|, p < .001) and longer light exposure duration (all estimates > |–7.94e−4|, p < .001) were found to be associated with slower heart rate. None of the light conditions available for the current review had an α-opic profile in which the melanopic EDI exceeded the other α-opic EDIs, so the proposed relationship between high relative melanopic EDI and heart rate could not be tested.
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 | 0.005 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".