3 ms·

There are a bunch of results for "light at night" on Google Scholar and Pubmed, but I'm not sure of specific references. This particular study (a manuscript is

There are a bunch of results for "light at night" on Google Scholar and Pubmed, but I'm not sure of specific references. This particular study (a manuscript is available on sci-hub[0]) does not have a discussion of this topic (other stuff that could come with the light) at all and two reviews I searched for "noise" and "sound" did not seem to have a discussion either. I'm sure some of the many studies over the years have at least actively changed the lighting and measured melatonin, but it is sloppy to not even discuss the topic. In the case of this study, a figure at the end of the manuscript shows that most of the light exposure (averaged) happens in the hour after bed and hour before getting up, so that seems like a big clue that it isn't just a case of light at night (ideally they would divide light exposure into three segments and look at each). Also, the study started with people not showing depressive symptoms but it didn't consider if light exposure had changed and the study seems on the small (863 people) and short (median 2 year follow up) side if light (and whatever else) exposure had not changed. For that matter, it sounds like they only measured light exposure and sleep for two days and assume that is representative of the whole period. It sounds like the depression scale[1] was given at the beginning and end of the study and looking at number or duration of episodes could have a different result. Also, it isn't clear that depressive symptoms here necessarily correspond with depression or if they are signs of a sleep disorder. All in all, this isn't a good study to look at individually. [0] https://twin.sci-hub.tw/ef19202b216d8e1af61a7ced2510e060/obayashi2017.pdf https://twin.sci-hub.tw/ef19202b216d8e1af61a7ced2510e060/oba... [1] https://consultgeri.org/try-this/general-assessment/issue-4.pdf https://consultgeri.org/try-this/general-assessment/issue-4....

DoreenMichele 9y ago
Thank you. I am not going to be able to dig into the bibliography mentioned. I have been skimming titles and I am not swayed. I used to be on a health list where abstracts were frequently posted. I stopped bothering to read the abstracts after speaking with a man with a PhD in chemistry who told me the abstracts frequently claim the opposite of the study. A relative of mine works at the CDC and has had cancer multiple times. They used to bitch at me about the lack of good cancer studies. The detail I recall them lamenting was that basically you got dozens of variations on whatever the latest funding craze was because researchers could get money for that and maybe one out of a hundred studies was actually proposing a new idea, if that much. I have read bad studies. I have participated in bad studies. I have been on health lists where people were asking for tips on how to qualify for studies as a means to get free treatment. It looked to me like a form of gaming the system in a way that would skew research results. I don't think they were up to anything nefarious. They just had serious health problems and we're desperate for help. But if you are getting tips for how to get into the study that you don't currently qualify for, I cannot help but think that will skew the study results. I am generally a skeptical person anyway. But I am very leery of this kind of research.

DoreenMichele 9y ago

Thank you. I am not going to be able to dig into the bibliography mentioned. I have been skimming titles and I am not swayed. I used to be on a health list where abstracts were frequently posted. I stopped bothering to read the abstracts after speaking with a man with a PhD in chemistry who told me the abstracts frequently claim the opposite of the study. A relative of mine works at the CDC and has had cancer multiple times. They used to bitch at me about the lack of good cancer studies. The detail I recall them lamenting was that basically you got dozens of variations on whatever the latest funding craze was because researchers could get money for that and maybe one out of a hundred studies was actually proposing a new idea, if that much. I have read bad studies. I have participated in bad studies. I have been on health lists where people were asking for tips on how to qualify for studies as a means to get free treatment. It looked to me like a form of gaming the system in a way that would skew research results. I don't think they were up to anything nefarious. They just had serious health problems and we're desperate for help. But if you are getting tips for how to get into the study that you don't currently qualify for, I cannot help but think that will skew the study results. I am generally a skeptical person anyway. But I am very leery of this kind of research.