Kaikki aineistot
Lisää
Purpose To study the prevalence and risk factors of myopia with data from a questionnaire study conducted in 1983 among Finnish school children. Methods School children (n = 4 961) from the 1st, 5th and 8th grades of school (7-, 11- and 15-year-olds) in Central Finland were screened for vision followed by a questionnaire, which was returned by 4 352 (87.7%) participants. Myopia was categorized based on the questionnaire. Items concerned daily time spent on near work and outdoor activities, excluding time spent at school, watching TV and parental myopia and the associations of myopia with these factors were studied. Results The prevalence of myopia was 3%, 15% and 27% among the 7-, 11- and 15-year-olds, and if daily near work at home was ≤1 hr, myopia prevalence was 0.5%, 3.3% and 17.6%, respectively. The adjusted risk of myopia for each daily near work hour was OR 1.476 (95% confidence interval 1.099–1.984, p = 0.010), OR 1.346 (1.170–1.584, p < 0.001) and OR 1.206 (1.076–1.352, p = 0.001), in the 3 age groups, respectively. The adjusted risk of myopia for each daily hour spent outdoors was OR 0.764 (0.648–0.900, p = 0.001) in the 11-year-olds and OR (0.840, 0.743–0.950, p = 0.005) in the 15-year-olds. Outdoors time prevented myopia at different levels of near work, although less at the highest levels, and near work increased risk of myopia with the level of outdoors time. If the ratio between near work and outdoors time was ≤0. 5 or >1.5, the prevalence of myopia was 1.4% versus 5.6%, 6.3% versus 24.7% and 15.9% versus 36.9%, among the 7-, 11- and 15-year-olds, respectively. The higher prevalence of myopia among the 11- and 15-year-old girls than boys was explained by more near work and less outdoor time among the girls. Having two myopic parents roughly doubled the risk of myopia compared to if one myopic parent in the 11- and 15-year-olds. Conclusions Myopic parents, greater near work time, less outdoors time, a higher near work/outdoors ratio, and being a girl increased the risk of myopia. Myopia was rare in the 7- and 11-year-olds if daily near work at home did not exceed one hour or if the near work/outdoors ratio was not higher than 0.5. Outdoors time was associated with the prevalence of myopia at all levels of near work, although the association was weaker at the highest level.
• Myopian eli likinäköisyyden esiintyvyys on viime vuosikymmeninä lisääntynyt voimakkaasti. • Tähän ovat ilmeisesti vaikuttaneet voimakkaimmin lähikatselun lisääntyminen ja ulkona vietetyn ajan väheneminen. Perintötekijät selittävät myopiasta vain pienen osan. • Ulkoilun lisäämisellä ja pitkäkestoisen lähikatselun välttämisellä on voitu vähentää lasten myopian ilmaantuvuutta. • Useiden silmäsairauksien ja näkövammaisuuden riski lisääntyy myopian voimistuessa. • Atropiinisilmätippojen käytöstä on raportoitu olevan hyötyä likinäköisyyden etenemisen hidastamisessa, mutta pidempiaikaisista hyödyistä ja mahdollisista haitoista tarvitaan seurantatietoa.
Purpose: To study the association of parents’ reports about their children’s near work and outdoor habits with myopia in their children. Methods: Data from a questionnaire study conducted in 1983 among Finnish schoolchildren were reanalyzed. Vision screening had been performed for all the schoolchildren (n = 4961) in the 1st, 5th, and 8th grades (7-, 11-, and 15-year-olds) in an area of Central Finland. The questionnaire, including information about myopia, was returned by 4305 (86.7%) participants. Items concerned parents’ estimates of their child’s habitual reading distance, time spent indoors as compared with age peers, daily near work, outdoors time, and parents’ myopia. The associations of myopia with these factors were studied. Results: Myopia prevalence in those with a habitual close reading distance vs. others was 14.3% vs. 2.1%, 28.7% vs. 13.1% and 45.8% vs. 24.7% for the 7-, 11- and 15-year-olds (p < 0.001 in all age-groups). Myopia prevalence in children reported by their parents as spending more time indoors than age peers was 10.9% vs. 2.8% (p < 0.001), 25.0% vs. 14.7% (p = 0.004) and 41.9% vs. 25.7% (p < 0.001) in the three age groups. Myopia prevalence among those reported as spending both more time indoors and reading at a close distance vs. others was 44.2% vs. 11.9% (Fisher’s exact t-test, p < 0.001). In the multiple logistic regression models, parental myopia almost doubled the risk of myopia in the 11- and 15-year-olds. ORs (95% CI) for myopia adjusted for parental myopia and sex were for close reading distance 7.381 (4.054–13.440), 2.382 (1.666–3.406), 2.237 (1.498–3.057), (p < 0.001), and for more time spent indoors, 3.692 (1.714–7.954), p = 0.001, 1.861 (1.157–2.992), p = 0.010), 1.700 (1.105–2.615), p = 0.016, in the three age groups. Conclusion: Children, especially 7-year-olds, reported by their parents as having a close reading distance and spending a lot of time indoors were associated with a higher risk for myopia.
Purpose To compare 3-year myopic progression between Finnish and Singaporean children. Methods Myopic progression was compared between 9-year-old (mean age 9.7 ± 0.4 years, n = 92) and 11-year-old (mean age 11.7 ± 0.4 years, n = 144) Finnish (Finnish RCT) children and Singaporean children matched by age and refraction (SCORMMatched, n = 403) and 7- to 8-year-old Singaporean children matched only by refraction (SCORM Young, n = 186). Spherical equivalent (SE) was between −0.50 and −3.00 D. Refraction with cycloplegia was controlled annually for 3 years. Information on parental myopia, mother’s education, time spent on near-work and outdoor time was gathered by parental questionnaire. Results Three-year myopic progression was −2.08 ± 0.96 D and −1.30 ± 0.69 D in the Finnish RCT and Singaporean SCORM Matched 9-year-olds, respectively, and −1.34 ± 0.78 D, and −0.52 ± 0.44 D in the 11-year-olds, respectively (p < 0.001 between all groups). Myopic progression was fastest (−2.69 ± 0.89 D) in the SCORM 7-year-olds and similar between the SCORM Matched 9-year-olds and Finnish RCT 11-year-olds (p = 0.55). The Finnish RCT and SCORM Matched children showed significant differences in both daily near-work time (1.8 ± 1.0 versus 3.4 ± 1.9 hours per day, p < 0.001) and outdoor time (2.6 ± 0.9 versus 0.5 ± 0.4 hours per day, p < 0.001). These differences did not, however, explain the differences in myopic progression between the groups. More time spent outdoors was associated with less myopic progression in the Finnish RCT (r = 0.17, p = 0.009) group only. In the whole materials, greater myopic progression was associated with younger age at baseline (p < 0.001), younger age was associated with mother’s higher education (p < 0.001), and mothers higher education was associated with myopia in both parents (p < 0.001). Conclusion Age at baseline was the most significant factor associated with myopic progression. However, at the same age and with the same initial refraction, the Finnish and Singaporean children showed different myopic progression. This result remains unexplained. Thus, age of myopia onset should be considered when comparing myopic progression between different samples and conducting treatment trials. Parental myopia may be a weak indicator of heredity of myopia.
Refractive error is the most common eye disorder worldwide and is a prominent cause of blindness. Myopia affects over 30% of Western populations and up to 80% of Asians. The CREAM consortium conducted genome-wide meta-analyses, including 37,382 individuals from 27 studies of European ancestry and 8,376 from 5 Asian cohorts. We identified 16 new loci for refractive error in individuals of European ancestry, of which 8 were shared with Asians. Combined analysis identified 8 additional associated loci. The new loci include candidate genes with functions in neurotransmission (GRIA4), ion transport (KCNQ5), retinoic acid metabolism (RDH5), extracellular matrix remodeling (LAMA2 and BMP2) and eye development (SIX6 and PRSS56). We also confirmed previously reported associations with GJD2 and RASGRF1. Risk score analysis using associated SNPs showed a tenfold increased risk of myopia for individuals carrying the highest genetic load. Our results, based on a large meta-analysis across independent multiancestry studies, considerably advance understanding of the mechanisms involved in refractive error and myopia.
This study presents the initial results of the Myopia Risk Calculator (MRC) Consortium, introducing an innovative approach to predict myopia risk by using trustworthy machine-learning models. The dataset included approximately 7,945 records (eyes) from 3,989 children. We developed a myopia risk calculator and an accompanying web interface. Central to our research is the challenge of model trustworthiness, specifically evaluating the effectiveness and robustness of AI (Artificial Intelligence)/ML (Machine Learning)/NLP (Natural Language Processing) models. We adopted a robust methodology combining Monte Carlo simulations with cross-validation techniques to assess model performance. Our experiments revealed that an ensemble of classifiers and regression models with Lasso regression techniques provided the best outcomes for predicting myopia risk. Future research aims to enhance model accuracy by integrating image and synthetic data, including advanced Monte Carlo simulations.
Karjalan konepajan työntekijät ryhmäkuvassa veturitallin seinustalla noin vuonna 1946. Karjalan konepaja toimi vuosina 1944-1949 Hyvinkäällä nykyisen Rautatiemuseon veturitallissa. Työntekijöistä suuri osa oli entisiä Viipurin konepajan työntekijöitä. Viipurin konepajan toiminta lakkasi 1944, kun se menetettiin Neuvostoliitolle.
Purpose: Emmetropization requires coordinated scaling of the major ocular components, corneal curvature and axial length. This coordination is achieved in part through a shared set of genetic variants that regulate eye size. Poorly coordinated scaling of corneal curvature and axial length results in refractive error. We tested the hypothesis that genetic variants regulating eye size in emmetropic eyes are distinct from those conferring susceptibility to refractive error. Methods: A genome-wide association study (GWAS) for corneal curvature in 22,180 adult emmetropic individuals was performed as a proxy for a GWAS for eye size. A polygenic score created using lead GWAS variants was tested for association with corneal curvature and axial length in an independent sample: 437 classified as emmetropic and 637 as ametropic. The genetic correlation between eye size and refractive error was calculated using linkage disequilibrium score regression for approximately 1 million genetic variants. Results: The GWAS for corneal curvature in emmetropes identified 32 independent genetic variants (P < 5.0e-08). A polygenic score created using these 32 genetic markers explained 3.5% (P < 0.001) and 2.0% (P = 0.001) of the variance in corneal curvature and axial length, respectively, in the independent sample of emmetropic individuals but was not predictive of these traits in ametropic individuals. The genetic correlation between eye size and refractive error was close to zero (rg = 0.00; SE = 0.06; P = 0.95). Conclusions: These results support the hypothesis that genetic variants regulating eye size in emmetropic eyes do not overlap with those conferring susceptibility to myopia. This suggests that distinct biological pathways regulate normal eye growth and myopia development.