Exploratory cohort examines ocular changes during low-intensity red light exposure in myopic adolescents, suggesting sex-specific differences.
To describe, in the absence of a control group, sex-specific trajectories of ocular parameters during low-intensity red light exposure in myopic adolescents in Liaoning, China. Given the uncontrolled design, this study was exploratory and hypothesis generating. This prospective, non-randomized, uncontrolled cohort enrolled 180 myopic adolescents (90 males, 90 females). All participants used a 650 nm low-intensity red light device twice daily. Ophthalmic examinations were conducted at baseline and at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months. Repeated-measures analysis of variance assessed time effects, sex effects, and time × sex interactions. At baseline, males had longer axial length (24.35 ± 0.94 vs. 24.02 ± 0.79 mm; P = 0.014) and more myopic spherical equivalent (- 2.25 ± 1.46 vs. -1.70 ± 1.43 D; P = 0.011) than females, while baseline UDVA and intraocular pressure did not differ significantly (both P > 0.05). Over 12 months, axial length increased in both sexes (time effect P < 0.001) and spherical equivalent became less negative (time effect P < 0.001), but time × sex interactions were not significant for axial length or spherical equivalent (both P > 0.05). The between-sex difference in annual axial elongation was 0.01 mm (95% CI - 0.023 to 0.066). UDVA (decimal) increased over time (P < 0.01) with a small time × sex interaction (P < 0.05): females showed earlier increases (significant at 1 month), whereas males showed later increases (significant at 3 months). This uncontrolled, nonrandomized exploratory cohort describes 12-month trajectories of ocular parameters observed in adolescents undergoing low-intensity red light exposure. Without a comparator group, these observations cannot be attributed to the exposure and should be interpreted as descriptive and hypothesis generating.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ren et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: