ライフサイエンスコーパス: glare

1 li-Robson chart and the Mesotest II (without glare).

2 ell as to eliminate unwanted reflections and glare.

3 r, white participants were more sensitive to glare.

4 ucing the potential occurrence of disability glare.

5 withdrew from the study because of disabling glare.

6 ophobia and 10 patients (62.50%) reported no glare.

7 re triplets better in the clinic for CS with glare.

8 s await continuing progress in understanding glare.

9 etinal image contrast or decrease disability glare.

10 with three aspects of visual performance in glare.

11 he fovea is to improve visual performance in glare.

12 cts of concentrated THC and CBD becomes more glaring.

13 ing in-home activities (15.1%), lighting and glare (11.7%), and facial recognition and social interac

14 ail, (2) peripheral vision, (3) darkness and glare, (4) household chores, and (5) outdoor mobility.

15 , documentation was discordant for reporting glare (48.1% [78 of 162]), pain or discomfort (26.5% [43

16 lurry vision (54%/15%), snowballs (52%/14%), glare (49%/15%), and halos (46%/14%).

17 ed after surgery: preoperative/postoperative glare (84%/36%), blurry vision (68%/22%), starbursts (66

18 Subjective impairment through glare (9.12+/-1.62 preoperatively vs. 3.07+/-2.29 postop

19 Mean glare acuity was better in toric IOL eyes (toric IOL = 0

20 A), residual cylinder, contrast sensitivity, glare acuity, pain score, and higher-order aberrations.

21 ative pain and corneal aberrations, and poor glare acuity.

22 that decrease daytime discomfort or dazzling glare also reduce nighttime mesopic and scotopic sensiti

23 t surrounding the KPro is the main source of glare and can be controlled with a dark-iris contact len

24 ion light has several limitations, including glare and discomfort during image acquisition, reduced i

25 patients experienced no-to-moderate rates of glare and halos, respectively.

26 on-dislocation and incorrect lens power, and glare and optical aberrations are leading indications fo

27 modern intraocular lenses, with incidence of glare and optical aberrations increasing, especially in

28 The visual acuity, subjective glare and photophobia reduction, anatomic outcome, and c

29 ual improvement as well as reduction of both glare and photophobia.

30 leads to decreased visual quality marked by glare and photophobia.

31 For the disability glare and photostress recovery portions of the experimen

32 Symptoms like pain, tingling, glare and red eyes disappear in less than 48 h after sur

33 In common environments, glare and target illumination sources have the same or s

34 t common consisting of linear dysphotopsias, glare, and blurring in 2.7%, 4.3%, and 4.3% of patients,

35 ients could experience spectacle dependence, glare, and haloes.

36 ty (NVA), contrast sensitivity (CS), CS with glare, and lighting.

37 ated with photic phenomena such as halos and glare, and may reduce contrast sensitivity.

38 on, CS, haloes (odds ratio = 0.64, P = .10), glare, and patient satisfaction were not statistically s

39 icantly more reduction in halos, starbursts, glare, and rings and spider webs, but less improvement i

40 Halos, glare, and starbursts occurred in 52%, 29%, and 24% of s

41 e in glare: photostress recovery, disability glare, and visual discomfort.

42 th age for the acuity, contrast sensitivity, glare, and visual field tests.

43 s, progressive blurring of vision and visual glare are common symptoms of cataracts.

44 ivity assessed under mesopic conditions with glare at >=2 spatial frequencies.

45 years (r = -0.36; P = 0.02), with disability glare at 3 years (r = -0.41; P = 0.02), and with best-co

46 r and binocular contrast sensitivity without glare at low to mid spatial frequencies compared with th

47 ected visual acuity and cause starbursts and glare at night.

48 ue-filtering lenses cannot reduce disability glare because image and glare illumination are decreased

49 nce in mesopic contrast sensitivity (without glare) between the 2 groups at 1.5, 3, and 12 cpds was l

50 d images assessed the following 14 symptoms: glare, blurry vision, starbursts, hazy vision, snowballs

51 1%) patients, dry eyes by 32 (76%) patients, glare by 23 (56%) patients, red eyes by 28 (67%) patient

52 Glare can be reduced significantly with the use of a con

53 c cornea was used to determine the impact of glare caused by scatter in the cornea and its control wi

54 corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA), and glare CDVA was performed at 4 PM (afternoon) and the fol

55 ed glazing leading to the highest reports of glare, closely followed by blue, while green and neutral

56 e where 56 participants were exposed to four glare conditions induced by the sun visible behind the c

57 asing visual problems under low luminance or glare conditions, yet there is limited understanding of

58 isual quality may be poorer under mesopic or glare conditions.

59 times (average P < 0.003), lower disability glare contrast thresholds (average P < 0.004), and lower

60 raocular pressure (IOP), pupillary aperture, glare, contrast sensitivity, endothelial cell density, a

61 Optical glare countermeasures are available for daytime driving

62 Halogen glare CS decreased at 1 week and halogen and xenon glare

63 CS decreased at 1 week and halogen and xenon glare CS improved at 6 months (P .016).

64 some impressive recent gains, improving the glaring deficiencies in health care quality is proving t

65 ental processes of bacterial life, this is a glaring deficiency.

66 ch is clarifying how discomfort and dazzling glare depend on different retinal photoreceptors and noc

67 n improvements in photostress recovery (PR), glare disability (GD), and chromatic contrast (CC).

68 Glare disability has often been studied independently.

69 data suggest that the MP carotenoids reduce glare discomfort and disability, shorten photostress rec

70 PKC isozymes to signaling effector pathways, glaring disparities in gene activation/repression are ob

71 el Prizes in STEM fields continue to exhibit glaring disparities in the recognition of women's contri

72 iated with reduced risk of injuries, whereas glare during nighttime driving was significantly worse i

73 sion of a lower contrast with a kind of halo/glare effect.

74 ving patients' survival from cancer with one glaring exception: brain cancer.

75 Halos and glare experienced, levels of patient satisfaction, and s

76 ntrast sensitivity function with and without glare for any spatial frequency (P > .05).

77 The influence of color on discomfort glare from daylight remains unknown, despite its known e

78 The most glaring gap in nature exposure research is the neglect o

79 A glaring gap in our knowledge remains the basis by which

80 siology of bipolar disorder (BD), there is a glaring gap in our understanding of how mitochondrial dy

81 unknown intent) has been characterized as a glaring gap in the US firearms data infrastructure.

82 retinal detachment, cystoid macular oedema, glare, halos and posterior capsule opacification.

83 While positive dysphotopsia (glare, halos and starbursts) has been largely attributed

84 ow-contrast VA, contrast sensitivity without glare, halos or starbursts, defocus curves, optical scat

85 es assessing visual symptoms (double images, glare, halos, and starbursts), dry eye symptoms, satisfa

86 lity of vision at low illumination including glare, halos, and starbursts.

87 Visual symptoms (double images, glare, halos, and/or starbursts), dry eye symptoms, part

88 rted in 96% of subjects for visual symptoms (glare, halos, double vision, and fluctuations in vision)

89 Postoperative dysphotopsia introduces glare, halos, starbursts and shadows in a small number o

90 These artifacts manifest themselves as glare, halos, starbursts and shadows.

91 the number reporting any visual experience (glare, halos, starbursts, hazy vision, blurred vision, d

92 Advances in understanding glare have been hampered by its complex, multidisciplina

93 eness of 7 visual symptoms: starburst, halo, glare, hazy vision, blurred vision, double vision, and d

94 ot reduce disability glare because image and glare illumination are decreased in the same proportion.

95 Photostress recovery time after halogen glare improved at 3 and 6 months (P .004).

96 Photophobia and glare improved in every case except for 1 (93.75%).

97 p limits the ability to predict and mitigate glare in environments with colored glazing and filtered

98 The effect of glare in implanted eyes was measured with a brightness a

99 historical and contemporary publications on glare in ophthalmology, illumination engineering, neurol

100 Mean contrast sensitivity with glare in PMOS-treated subjects improved significantly po

101 Contrast sensitivity and glare is an important subjective test, which is affected

102 Disability glare is caused by scattered intraocular light (straylig

103 Discomfort glare is caused by situational illumination too intense

104 Glare is problematic for patients and clinicians despite

105 This instrument-induced glare is produced far from the sample plane, inside the

106 public health policies in Brazil, there is a glaring lack of national epidemiological studies on neur

107 ral and/or molecular imaging is particularly glaring, leading to a complicated and erratic decision a

108 ar visual transmittance resulting in similar glare metrics across colors.

109 However, there remains a glaring mismatch between where studies on physical activ

110 These findings suggest that current glare models using photopic luminosity function as a spe

111 es: activities of daily living, lighting and glare, movement, eye discomfort, other effects of glauco

112 photopic vision with frequent complaints of glare necessitates penetrating keratoplasty in the major

113 We provide one pathway through the forest of glare nomenclature and mechanisms.

114 Dazzling glare occurs when high illuminances are spread across th

115 Yet their metascientific approach has one glaring omission (and misinterpretation of) - the role o

116 ransient light-sensitivity syndrome, rainbow glare, opaque bubble layer, epithelial breakthrough of g

117 undesired visual acuity without symptoms of glare/optical aberrations.

118 patients reported no foreign body sensation, glare, or other side effects with topical CsA treatment.

119 ect on corneal thickness, visual acuity, and glare over the entire course of the study.

120 window shade materials are used to mitigate glare, overheating and privacy issues, and they affect v

121 ), and a 48.5% reduction in severe nighttime glare (P < 0.0001) were found.

122 53.1% reduction in marked to severe daytime glare (P < 0.0001), and a 48.5% reduction in severe nigh

123 l acuity, contrast sensitivity (P = .28), or glare (P = .88).

124 A morning myopic shift and increased glare paralleling increased corneal thickness may partic

125 el on three aspects of visual performance in glare: photostress recovery, disability glare, and visua

126 These patients often complained of glare preoperatively, which most likely resulted from li

127 Smaller pupil diameter during glare presentation significantly correlated with higher

128 Visual discomfort during the glare presentation was assessed with a visual discomfort

129 multidimensional analysis, and addresses the glaring proteomic need to isolate trace analytes from hi

130 s going to be part of the efforts to address glaring racial inequities in health care quality and out

131 Robson contrast sensitivity with and without glare, Randot stereoacuity, and 60 degrees Humphrey visu

132 Particularly, the anti-glare recognition with polarimetry saves an order of mag

133 This intelligent glare-reduction is important for various imaging applica

134 these models aligned better with subjective glare reports, they require modifications for higher lum

135 the model-eye measurements and patients' BAT glare responses identified that the hazy corneal graft s

136 One of the glaring restrictions is the unavailability of easily acc

137 f 0.14 to 1.98, but scores on the NEI-RQL-42 glare scale worsened at the 1-month follow-up.

138 logMAR (P = .174, control group), Delta CDVA glare +/- SD 0.34 +/- 0.25 logMAR (P < .001, FECD group)

139 es measured were visual acuity, contrast and glare sensitivity (Pelli-Robson chart for photopic and d

140 th moderate or better vision (<3 letters for glare sensitivity and <20 points missed for binocular vi

141 Glare sensitivity and binocular field loss were signific

142 vere visual impairment, especially increased glare sensitivity and cosmetic disturbances.

143 Contrast and glare sensitivity improved significantly (p = 0.008) in

144 al impairment, blurred vision and increasing glare sensitivity in both eyes in 2014.

145 hose with poorer levels of vision, increased glare sensitivity or reduced visual fields were associat

146 issed for binocular visual fields) increased glare sensitivity or reduced visual fields were, paradox

147 The correlation between acuity and glare sensitivity was low (rho = 0.12).

148 cy end points, including decreased light and glare sensitivity, improved health-related quality of li

149 Visual acuity, contrast and glare sensitivity, stereoacuity, and visual fields are s

150 under normal and low luminance, contrast and glare sensitivity, stereoacuity, and visual fields were

151 mal and low luminance, contrast sensitivity, glare sensitivity, stereoacuity, and visual fields.

152 Glare sensitivity, visual field loss, and UFOV were sign

153 ty, contrast sensitivity, visual fields, and glare sensitivity.

154 n do white participants for all tests except glare sensitivity.

155 luded better vision in 1 eye, blurry vision, glare, sensitivity to light, cloudy vision, missing patc

156 the Helmholz-Kohlrausch effect can apply to glare similar to brightness perception.

157 ctive outcomes were evaluated using Halo and Glare simulation and the Seven-Item Visual-Functioning I

158 isual symptoms were assessed with a halo and glare simulator plus a patient questionnaire which also

159 ties performed under mesopic conditions with glare sources may be affected during the first postopera

160 nch-measured point spread function (PSF) and glare sources were compared.

161 CS) with and without halogen- and xenon-type glare sources were evaluated at each visit.

162 vision (QoV) questionnaire score, haloes and glare, spectacle independence, and patient satisfaction.

163 The published day driving and glare subscales should be examined for relevance and con

164 m-subscale associations; the day driving and glare subscales were not acceptable regarding these prop

165 Clarity of Vision, Near Vision, Far Vision, Glare, Symptoms, Worry, and Satisfaction with Correction

166 -BCVA), Mars Contrast Sensitivity (CS) and a Glare Test (GT) were performed to all patients.

167 aboratory test of visual stress (the Pattern Glare Test), administered online, corroborated the findi

168 he clinic and home for DVA, NVA, and CS with glare testing (P < .05, multiple regression model).

169 s were performed by contrast sensitivity and glare tests for each group.

170 The contrast sensitivity and glare tests were significantly affected in the forme fru

171 Unlike previous studies of MP and glare, the present study used free-viewing conditions, i

172 nts with multifocal IOLs complain of halo or glare, these symptoms can be minimized by surgical techn

173 ht on the pronounced effects of factors like glare, vehicle and pedestrian presence, examining their

174 pic distortion were mostly inconsistent with glaring violations to the MR assumptions.

175 tions of corneal thickness, refraction, and (glare) visual acuity in advanced FECD.

176 specific difficulties with tasks related to glare, visual processing speed, visual search, and perip

177 Glare was delivered via high-bright-white LEDs.

178 Disability glare was measured with a straylight meter.

179 riving, reading road signs, and experiencing glare were frequent, but inquiries about driving tasks (

180 e and intermediate visual acuity, halos, and glare were not statistically different between both grou

181 Starbursts, halos, and glare were the most frequently rated severe symptoms wit

182 en the non-BLF and BLF IOL groups except for glare when driving in the dark (evening or night), which

183 "some" difficulty performing tasks involving glare, whereas 22% reported at least "some" difficulty w

184 ing system that instantly attenuates intense glares while retaining the weaker-intensity objects capt

185 Additionally, the glaring white light excited at a wavelength of 325 nm wa