ライフサイエンスコーパス: low vision

1 tients with irreversible vision impairment ("low vision").

2 and ocular complications (macular edema and low vision).

3 recognition of these targets by people with low vision.

4 acuity-reducing goggles, would generalize to low vision.

5 esh, 1.5% of adults are blind and 21.6% have low vision.

6 different patients with different degrees of low vision.

7 d in 50 normal subjects and 42 subjects with low vision.

8 influence of font in reading with normal and low vision.

9 nt size, and reading speed for subjects with low vision.

10 nd visual-developmental changes that lead to low vision.

11 health system, anxiety, and frustration from low vision.

12 l impairment criteria, 18 patients (34%) had low vision.

13 0.84) for blindness and 0.46 (0.31-0.68) for low vision.

14 before in Retinitis Pigmentosa patients with low vision.

15 ating reading in individuals with normal and low vision.

16 ulness of this device among individuals with low vision.

17 taract, cytomegalovirus (CMV) retinitis, and low vision.

18 ilaterally blind, and 12 patients (0.5%) had low vision.

19 he subjects with vitreo-retinal disorder had low vision.

20 isibility of ramps and steps for people with low vision.

21 l search was greatly impaired in youths with low vision.

22 visual functions in youths with typical and low vision.

23 visual function was impaired in youths with low vision.

24 portant for the safe mobility of people with low vision.

25 s to different aspects of QoL in people with low vision.

26 2% among the potential participants; and for low vision 0.25% versus 0.53%. The risk ratio (95% confi

27 e, 0.05 logMAR, P < 0.001) and subjects with low vision (0.09 logMAR, P < 0.001).

28 isual disturbance (29% vs. 9%), blindness or low vision (5% vs. 0.5%), retinal detachment (11% vs. 0.

29 Low vision adversely impacts daily activities, particula

30 ed and tested on a Microsoft Hololens 1 as a low vision aid for RP patients.

31 d and randomized trial of the AR pseudocolor low vision aid to evaluate real world mobility and near

32 The mean near VA with the appropriate low-vision aid was 0.91+/-0.18 (M notation) at baseline.

33 tic factor for successful use of a hand-held low-vision aid.

34 eST) consecutively with five different LVAs (low vision aids) during one day in a randomized cross-ov

35 We estimated costs of informal care, low vision aids, special education, school screening, go

36 also better in the 7 patients who used other low-vision aids (9.7 [0.5] vs 6.0 [2.6], respectively; m

37 Low-vision aids (LVAs) can optimize the use of remaining

38 ment and visual rehabilitation by the use of low-vision aids among children with glaucoma should be i

39 lty of targeted items may reflect the use of low-vision aids and training to make tasks easier.

40 visual acuity with no low-vision aids, using low-vision aids if available, and using the portable art

41 ad-mounted displays with commonly prescribed low-vision aids to compare their effectiveness in addres

42 g their best-corrected visual acuity with no low-vision aids, using low-vision aids if available, and

43 ogies may offer advantages over conventional low-vision aids.

44 vices have the greatest potential for use as low-vision aids.

45 e and affordable alternative to conventional low-vision aids.

46 treatable causes of blindness and bilateral low vision among adults.

47 e of all uveitis subtypes and an increase in low vision among affected patients over the past decade

48 efractive errors, amblyopia, strabismus, and low vision among hearing-impaired and deaf students in K

49 Prevalence of 4.6% of optically reversible low vision and 1.8% of blindness reversible by optical c

50 The most prevalent ocular complication was low vision and blindness (27.85%, 95% CI 22.16%-33.54%,

51 at population screening may reduce bilateral low vision and blindness caused by glaucoma by approxima

52 d retinal detachment 0.10%.The prevalence of low vision and blindness due to vitreo-retinal disorders

53 egeneration, a leading cause of irreversible low vision and blindness globally, can be partially addr

54 The 10-year cumulative incidence of low vision and blindness in the cohort of scleritis was

55 Incidence of scleritis stratified by age and low vision and blindness in the scleritis cohort were an

56 The exposure variable, VI, was based on low vision and blindness International Classification of

57 The prevalence of low vision and blindness was 28.77% (95% CI, 22.78-35.37

58 Cumulative lifetime risks of low vision and blindness were estimated using Kaplan-Mei

59 54%, N = 66); of which, the highest rates of low vision and blindness were in the cohorts with pan or

60 lth utilities; ultimately, societal costs of low vision and blindness were included.

61 l parameters and cumulative lifetime risk of low vision and legal blindness were assessed.

62 quisite to initiate appropriate referrals to low vision and mobility specialists to improve mobility

63 nd locomotion were qualitatively similar for low vision and normal vision with artificial acuity redu

64 e, congenital retinal disease, and blindness/low vision) and mental illness in a pediatric population

65 Visual impairment, low vision, and blindness were defined according to the

66 utcomes were the incidence and prevalence of low vision (annual and cumulative).

67 Most patients with low vision are elderly and have functional limitations f

68 efractive errors, amblyopia, strabismus, and low vision are more common among children with hearing i

69 efractive errors, amblyopia, strabismus, and low vision are more prevalent among deaf and hearing-imp

70 %) were "poor responders," 22 eyes (19%) had low vision at baseline and were only observed, and 12 ey

71 surance coverage, eye disease diagnoses, and low vision/blindness at baseline.

72 n at fixation (best-corrected visual acuity, low-vision Cambridge Color Test), macular function (micr

73 ndings suggest that measures in clinical and low-vision care for patients with geographic atrophy sho

74 95% CI, 0.56-0.67), diagnosed blindness and low vision (claims AUC, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.53-0.58; EHR AUC

75 he characteristics of patients attending the low vision clinic of a Nigerian tertiary hospital.

76 tional study of all new patients seen at the low vision clinic over a 36 month period.

77 nocular visual acuity</=6/18 and attending a low vision clinic, were recruited.

78 A consecutive series of 851 patients at a low-vision clinic rated the importance of driving on a f

79 (DR) and other ocular diseases, managed in a low-vision clinic, in four different types of functional

80 ant public health problem; however, very few low vision clinics are available to address the needs of

81 opular means of measuring reading ability in low-vision clinics; yet, to date there are no standards

82 poor vision (visual acuity 20/200 or worse), low vision codes, and need for glaucoma filtering surger

83 rom a one-off exhibition event for blind and low-vision communities to a national and international m

84 common conditions captured were blindness or low vision, corneal transplantation, glaucoma, and catar

85 in fovea, motion sensitivity of youths with low vision deteriorated in the periphery.

86 tionnaire, and were examined and tested with low vision devices by the attending low vision specialis

87 Low-vision devices without therapy and LV devices with t

88 Interventions: Low-vision devices without therapy and LV devices with t

89 ring glasses or contact lenses or were using low-vision devices.

90 Hispanic eyes also had increased odds of low vision diagnoses (Hispanic OR = 1.18, 95% CI = 1.07-

91 tant increase in the number of patients with low vision due to age-related macular degeneration and o

92 e bridge the gap between computer vision and low vision fields by introducing a text accessibility as

93 a on the prevalence and causes of functional low vision (FLV) in adults and children are lacking but

94 Finally, clinicians can direct patients with low vision from any cause to resources designed to help

95 Although 4 eyes (1.7%) had uncorrected low vision from VKC-induced corneal astigmatism or kerat

96 5) by group varied from 5 to 15 dB, and most low-vision groups performed more reliably than CTL subje

97 of a given size would be recognizable for a low vision human reader.

98 imited visual impairment was noted in 22.3%, low vision in 29.7%, and legal blindness in 48.0%.

99 many, but not all, patients with ME causing low vision in a tertiary care setting will enjoy meaning

100 e (CI, -15.1% to -10.4%; P<0.001), to -19.4% low vision in both eyes (CI, -20.8% to -18.1%; P<0.001),

101 prevalence and determinants of blindness and low vision in Nakuru district, Kenya.

102 P<0.001), to -52.9% blindness in one eye and low vision in other eye (CI, -55.3% to -50.4%; P<0.001),

103 n-dependent therapeutic target for enhancing low vision in RP and other blinding disorders.

104 important cause of reversible blindness and low vision in the Brazilian population.

105 Patients were considered for FMT if they had low vision in the fellow eye and choroidal neovasculariz

106 ing from -11.2% normal vision in one eye and low vision in the other eye (95% confidence interval [CI

107 d compliance to WCAG may create barriers for low vision individuals to successfully access patient ed

108 An integrated mental health and low vision intervention halved the incidence of depressi

109 Low vision is an important public health problem; howeve

110 ion to patients with low health literacy and low vision is beneficial for both patients and health ca

111 g text accessibility for different levels of low vision is challenging, leading to product designs th

112 Low vision is irreversible in many patients and constitu

113 igators on visual endpoints in patients with low vision, it is encouraging that during the observatio

114 rld Health Organization (WHO) definition of 'low vision' (<= 20/80) and US driving standards (>= 20/4

115 tiveness and cost-effectiveness of different low-vision (LV) programs.

116 tiveness and cost-effectiveness of different low-vision (LV) programs.

117 h Courier (P < 0.001), but for subjects with low vision, maximum reading speeds were 10% slower with

118 with typical vision (n = 7, ages 10-17) and low vision (n = 24, ages 9-18).

119 ase (n = 48,562), and 25.9% had blindness or low vision (n = 46,778).

120 Our results demonstrate that the low vision observed in LCA2 patients involves a shift in

121 5% CI, 0.31-3.18; P = 0.99) or occurrence of low vision (odds ratio, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.51-2.07; P = 0.9

122 5% CI, 0.31-3.18; P = 0.99) or occurrence of low vision (odds ratio, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.51-2.07; P = 0.9

123 Effects of low vision on peripheral visual function are poorly unde

124 49.6, respectively; P < .001); blindness and low vision (ophthalmic condition, 1.48 vs 0.75: service,

125 cted visual field status, visual acuity, and low vision or blindness as defined by the World Health O

126 os of the cumulative incidence for bilateral low vision or blindness caused by glaucoma in screened p

127 so noted age at diagnosis and death and when low vision or blindness occurred.

128 ople with disabilities, including those with low vision or blindness.

129 population ages, all physicians who care for low vision or elderly patients should be aware of its cl

130 ate or severe vision impairment, here called low vision, or blindness by the World Health Organizatio

131 ed to assess for the increasing incidence of low vision over time.

132 logMAR for normal subjects and subjects with low vision, P < 0.002).

133 nd cellphone) for 30 normally sighted and 10 low-vision participants.

134 Sixteen subjects with heterogeneous forms of low vision participated-acuities from approximately 20/2

135 pies tailored to treat the diseases in other low vision patients are available.

136 linics are available to address the needs of low vision patients in most developing countries.

137 aid the planning and delivery of services to low vision patients in these countries.

138 demographic and clinical characteristics of low vision patients seen in this clinic are similar to t

139 The ability of low vision patients to discriminate the facial emotions

140 ual objects could enhance the performance of low vision patients who primarily perceive images of low

141 One hundred thirty-five consecutive low vision patients with varying diagnoses and 30 contro

142 ove future attempts at image enhancement for low vision patients.

143 ovel tools to improve the quality of life of low vision patients.

144 Eye care providers could consider screening low-vision patients about difficulty with eye drop self-

145 Low-vision patients appeared to devalue the goal of driv

146 ision necessary to measure visual ability of low-vision patients with moderate to severe vision loss

147 The low vision, pediatric ophthalmology, general ophthalmolo

148 n X-linked retinal disorder characterized by low vision, photoaversion, and poor color discrimination

149 autosomal recessive trait, characterized by low vision, photophobia, and lack of color discriminatio

150 patients (nearly 80%) having TRD surgery had low vision pre-op, almost half attained VA that was > 20

151 VI categories included low vision (presenting visual acuity worse than 6/18 to

152 Its use in conjunction with clinical low-vision programs may pave the way for developing bett

153 The Low Vision Quality of Life (LVQOL), the Adaptation to Ag

154 small digital displays, and when people with low vision read magnified text.

155 gns that often overlook the vision status of low vision readers.

156 or normally sighted and eight characters for low-vision readers.

157 reading speed assessment using the Minnesota Low Vision Reading (MNREAD) test under a range of contra

158 ow-luminance visual acuity (LLVA), Minnesota low-vision reading (MNREAD) performance, contrast sensit

159 a significant difference in both normal and low-vision reading performance.

160 Little is known about the effect of font on low-vision reading.

161 roach to improve referral and utilization of low vision rehabilitation (LVR) care.

162 The Memory or Reasoning Enhanced Low Vision Rehabilitation (MORE-LVR) program was created

163 rs in the United States were enrolled in the Low Vision Rehabilitation Outcomes Study (LVROS) from Ap

164 rs in the United States were enrolled in the Low Vision Rehabilitation Outcomes Study.

165 An increased provision of low vision rehabilitation services may be required to co

166 ate comparative clinical outcome research in low vision rehabilitation, we must use patient-centered

167 ropriate way to measure the effectiveness of low vision rehabilitation.

168 unaware of any standardized protocols within low-vision rehabilitation (LVR) to address cognitive imp

169 nsiderations, and their potential for use in low-vision rehabilitation and vision enhancement.

170 their adult relative to an appointment at a low-vision rehabilitation clinic and self-identified the

171 New patients referred for low-vision rehabilitation were asked, "What are your chi

172 ipsychotic and other medications, as well as low-vision rehabilitation, are necessary to establish va

173 lement can be used to measure the effects of low-vision rehabilitation; however, only 7 of the 34 ite

174 jects with BRVO and CRVO, 37.25% and 50% had low vision, respectively.

175 y known methods for preventing blindness and low vision resulting from this frequently asymptomatic d

176 or further research into the determinants of low vision service utilisation in developing countries.

177 Greater availability of low vision services and ophthalmologist training in diag

178 patients and females may be under-utilising low vision services.

179 rs its second 5-year phase, the provision of low-vision services and their integration into national

180 n are lacking but are important for planning low-vision services.

181 In the RP group, median ages for reaching low vision, severe visual impairment, and blindness were

182 The final Low Vision Severely Constricted Peripheral Eyesight (LV-

183 ted with low vision devices by the attending low vision specialist.

184 ic ethnicity, age younger than 60 years, and low-vision status.

185 sess adaptive gait kinematics in healthy and low vision subjects.

186 Low-vision subjects struggled to self-administer eye dro

187 be stronger predictors of QoL in people with low vision than visual factors such as contrast sensitiv

188 ware when measuring QoL in a population with low vision that even vision-related QoL is strongly infl

189 ng rehabilitation should be a cornerstone of low-vision therapy.

190 mated from responses to the Veterans Affairs Low Vision Visual Functioning Questionnaire (higher scor

191 mated from responses to the Veterans Affairs Low Vision Visual Functioning Questionnaire (higher scor

192 At 5 years, the incidence of low vision was 14% versus 24%, and that of blindness was

193 Functional low vision was defined as a corrected visual acuity in t

194 The commonest cause of low vision was retinitis pigmentosa (16.6%); 14.5% had a

195 ian ages to reach mild visual impairment and low vision were 12 and 25 years, respectively.

196 speeds of normal subjects and subjects with low vision were substantially slower (by as much as 50%)

197 accessible to all people with blindness and low vision, who often rely on screen reader accessibilit

198 Cataracts are a main cause of low vision; with the growing elderly population, the inc