Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Light exposure at night predicts incidence of cardiovascular diseases

medrxiv.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 116 posts

Re: Light exposure at night predicts incidence of cardiovascular diseases

#91

Post by lo0dot0 »

ethan_smith wrote: post #84
lunarcave wrote: post #7

> including physical activity, smoking, alcohol, diet, sleep duration, socioeconomic status, and polygenic risk Wondering how much of this is due to geography and air quality. City centers have relatively bad air quality and a high amount of ambient lighting at night, compared to non urbanized areas. The cardiovascular effects of poor air quality is arguably well understood.

The study measured personal light exposure via wrist-worn trackers for a week rather than using geographic light pollution data, which would better control for the urban air quality confounding you've identified.

No, measuring light doesn't remove the air quality confounder. Measuring air quality would allow to remove the air quality confounder. What are you smoking?

Re: Light exposure at night predicts incidence of cardiovascular diseases

#92

Post by Jensson »

Buttons840 wrote: post #34
patrakov wrote: post #8

Sorry for exposing my personal medical data, but... I literally cannot fall asleep without at least some light. So I sleep with lights on. Trying to be like normal people would only make my overall health worse. Is this a medical condition that has a name?

Maybe got one of those lights that slowly dim to simulate sunset. You can fall asleep in the light, but it will be dark while you sleep. I have 2 Philips branded ones that have worked well for 11 years now.

If you are from a cold area people needed to keep a camp fire alive throughout the night or they died, I'd bet those would have a hard time sleeping without lights on since their ancestors who did died.

DNA adapts very quickly to such hard selectors, and many populations has lived in such areas for many thousands of years by now.

Re: Light exposure at night predicts incidence of cardiovascular diseases

#93

Post by gmerc »

nurettin wrote: post #70
dotancohen wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Also: ”A.J.K.P. and S.W.C. are co-founders and co-directors of Circadian Health Innovations PTY LTD.” The other edge of the "not impartial" sword: these are people who are highly familiar, likely experts, in the related field. Who else is more qualified to conduct such a study?

> Who else is more qualified to conduct such a study? Whoever does not have a monetary interest in the studied subject is the one who is more qualified. Same with smoking related research, same with children's toy paint related research. But the third edge is: These are phases of fraud that societies go through. They will happen, some will think they are legit, some won't, they disappear into some third world country…

That's not how the world works anymore, so it's a completely unrealistic expectation.

Re: Light exposure at night predicts incidence of cardiovascular diseases

#94

Post by Llamamoe »

cluckindan wrote: post #3

Preprint not peer reviewed. Also: ”A.J.K.P. and S.W.C. are co-founders and co-directors of Circadian Health Innovations PTY LTD.” Lemme guess, looking for funding.

The result is, however, consistent with existing science.

Re: Light exposure at night predicts incidence of cardiovascular diseases

#95

Post by pazimzadeh »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #57
pazimzadeh wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Peer review doesn't tell you if the data is valid or not. they published their methodology and anyone is free to repeat the study. Peer review just checks for obvious errors in study design, asks for more info if needed, and decides whether the paper is a good fit for the journal. Watson and Crick's paper describing the structure of DNA wasn't peer reviewed. if you think they're wrong, try it for yourself and publish…

> Peer review doesn't tell you if the data is valid or not. Sure but nobody claimed that. > Watson and Crick's paper describing the structure of DNA wasn't peer reviewed. I'd point out that outliers exist but that was before peer review become so popular. Right now there's a good correlation between competency and peer review. > if you think they're wrong, try it for yourself and publish the results. Watson and Crick…

>> Watson and Crick's paper describing the structure of DNA wasn't peer reviewed. > I'd point out that outliers exist but that was before peer review become so popular

what outlier? I just picked a famous example, there are almost infinitely many examples to choose from...

>> if you think they're wrong, try it for yourself and publish the results. > Watson and Crick or the article?

yes

> For a balanced discussion of the article, it's reasonable to point out a lack of peer review to give context to what stage this is at.

The first thing that the pre-print says, in bold at the top of the page, is that this is a non-peer-reviewed article and shouldn't be used for clinical practice. so commenting "it's not peer reviewed" doesn't add anything

> If "try it yourself" is the bar then I guess nobody comments? That doesn't seem like a good way to learn anything.

"try it yourself" is the bar for determining the validity of the results. A comment section is not going to be able to determine the validity. My whole point is that it's worth discussing the article without waiting for a final peer-reviewed version of it. If you disagree with the results, you can point out a perceived flaw in the study or find papers which contradict the results so we can discuss something concrete

Re: Light exposure at night predicts incidence of cardiovascular diseases

#96

Post by pazimzadeh »

renmillar wrote: post #89
pazimzadeh wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Peer review doesn't tell you if the data is valid or not. they published their methodology and anyone is free to repeat the study. Peer review just checks for obvious errors in study design, asks for more info if needed, and decides whether the paper is a good fit for the journal. Watson and Crick's paper describing the structure of DNA wasn't peer reviewed. if you think they're wrong, try it for yourself and publish…

This creates a perfect setup for manipulation - the high barriers to entry for proper equipment, organization, and funding needed to produce quality reproductions mean that if someone posts fake content that mimics scientific paper formatting and includes all the right academic signals, most people will accept it as legitimate without question.

it's the opposite. no doctor or insurance is going to change their policy based on a single result, you wait until a few separate groups have replicated the results. In the scientific community there is a reward (being cited) for pointing out that someone else's finding was wrong. The more important the initial finding, the more citations (and attention) you will get if you're the first one to correct the record. There's also a reward for building on an initial finding and going further, but you can only do that if the original finding stands. So one way or another the truth will come out.

Publishing a pre-print is only valuable if your result hold long term. You're just stating that you did it first.

Re: Light exposure at night predicts incidence of cardiovascular diseases

#97

Post by cryptonector »

adrianN wrote: post #87
cryptonector wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> > We need to make it a lot cooler for researchers to not do original research all the time but to do replication and peer review. > This should be the work of grad students, not cranking out another paper or slaving for professors. But the professors need to arrange for this.

The people paying the professors need to arrange for this

Often that's us.

Re: Light exposure at night predicts incidence of cardiovascular diseases

#98

Post by Dylan16807 »

pazimzadeh wrote: post #95
Dylan16807 wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Peer review doesn't tell you if the data is valid or not. Sure but nobody claimed that. > Watson and Crick's paper describing the structure of DNA wasn't peer reviewed. I'd point out that outliers exist but that was before peer review become so popular. Right now there's a good correlation between competency and peer review. > if you think they're wrong, try it for yourself and publish the results. Watson and Crick…

>> Watson and Crick's paper describing the structure of DNA wasn't peer reviewed. > I'd point out that outliers exist but that was before peer review become so popular what outlier? I just picked a famous example, there are almost infinitely many examples to choose from... >> if you think they're wrong, try it for yourself and publish the results. > Watson and Crick or the article? yes > For a balanced discussion of…

> what outlier? I just picked a famous example, there are almost infinitely many examples to choose from...

And there's even more almost infinitely many examples that say peer review is a strong signal.

> yes

If you were including the former, you were making a very rude argument by implying that anyone that values peer review is rendered invalid by that example.

> My whole point is that it's worth discussing the article without waiting for a final peer-reviewed version of it.

Telling people to shut up about peer review is bad for discussion.

Re: Light exposure at night predicts incidence of cardiovascular diseases

#99

Post by cluckindan »

Llamamoe wrote: post #94
cluckindan wrote: post #3

Preprint not peer reviewed. Also: ”A.J.K.P. and S.W.C. are co-founders and co-directors of Circadian Health Innovations PTY LTD.” Lemme guess, looking for funding.

The result is, however, consistent with existing science.

However, there is likely a correlation between nighttime light exposure and living in a city, on a lower floor, next to a street with medium or heavy traffic.

There is likely also a significant correlation between living in such conditions and exposure to pollution, especially inhaled particulate matter.

Such a correlation also holds elsewhere: living in a high-rise means no streetlights outside your window, and also yields cleaner air than living at or near street level; living in the countryside means practically no light pollution, but also much less traffic and thus much less particulates in the air.

Inhaled particulate matter is a leading cause of cardiovascular disease.

See e.g. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S073510971...

Re: Light exposure at night predicts incidence of cardiovascular diseases

#100

Post by Llamamoe »

cluckindan wrote: post #99
Llamamoe wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The result is, however, consistent with existing science.

However, there is likely a correlation between nighttime light exposure and living in a city, on a lower floor, next to a street with medium or heavy traffic. There is likely also a significant correlation between living in such conditions and exposure to pollution, especially inhaled particulate matter. Such a correlation also holds elsewhere: living in a high-rise means no streetlights outside your window, and also…

I've skimmed lots of studies about the relationship between light and health in the past.

In both humans and other animals, our internal sleep-wake clocks are synchronized to the day-night cycle through light exposure(and indeed, without it aren't even 24h-long), and have broad implications for mood, wakefulness, metabolism, and general health. I well might have seen something about cardiovascular problems specifically, though I don't remember.

Post reply on HN