Search

Research on Palaeolithic hunter-gatherer diet has focused on the consumption of animals. Evidence for the use of plant foods is comparatively limited but is rapidly expanding. The authors present an analysis of carbonised macro-remains of processed plants from Franchthi Cave in the Aegean Basin and Shanidar Cave in the north-west Zagros Mountains. Microscopic examination of the charred food remains reveals the use of pounded pulses as a common ingredient in cooked plant foods. The results are discussed in the context of the regional archaeobotanical literature, leading the authors to argue that plants with bitter and astringent tastes were key ingredients of Palaeolithic cuisines in South-west Asia and the Eastern Mediterranean. Keywords: South-west Asia, Eastern Mediterranean, Palaeolithic diet, prehistoric food preparation, huntergatherers, archaeobotany, Introduction The dietary choices and food preparation technologies of Palaeolithic hunter-gatherers are the subject of much debate. Palaeolithic peoples have been portrayed, for example, as specialist hunters focusing on large [...]

Purpose Methods Results Conclusion To assess the visual impact of Diffusion Optics Technology™ 0.2 DOT lenses (SightGlass Vision Inc.) designed for myopia control on primary gaze. DOT spectacle lenses contain light scattering elements that scatter light as it passes through the lens which, in turn, reduces retinal image contrast.Fifty‐one children (12.2 ± 1.3, range 10–14 years; 51% females) were randomly assigned to wear DOT spectacle (n = 27) or single vision lenses (n = 24) across six investigational sites in North America. Binocular high‐ and low‐contrast distant visual acuities, near visual acuity, reading speed, contrast sensitivity, stereoacuity and glare were assessed in primary gaze after at least 3 years of wear, with the study 95% powered in all metrics to detect significant differences between the groups.Mean binocular distance high‐contrast (−0.09 ± 0.02 vs. −0.08 ± 0.02 logMAR, p = 0.81), low‐contrast (0.05 ± 0.02 vs. 0.07 ± 0.02 logMAR, p = 0.52) and near visual acuity with glare sources (−0.06 ± 0.03 vs. −0.09 ± 0.03 logMAR, p = 0.32) were similar for DOT and single vision lens wearers, respectively. Contrast sensitivity was similar between children wearing DOT or single vision lenses across 11 of the 16 spatial frequencies (p > 0.05). Mean stereopsis was similar (p = 0.30) with the DOT lenses (33.2 ± 12.5″) and single vision lenses (38.1 ± 14.2″). Functional reading speed metrics were similar in both study groups, as was the objectively measured head tilt during reading (p > 0.05). The mean halo radius was 0.56° ± 0.17° with the DOT lenses compared with 0.50° ± 0.12° with single vision lenses (p = 0.02), but the statistically significant difference was smaller than the non‐inferiority bound of 0.4°.Diffusion optics technology lenses provide a clinically equivalent visual experience to a standard single vision lens. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: To evaluate the myopia control efficacy of Diffusion Optics Technology (DOT) spectacle lenses in children over a 4-year treatment period., Methods: CYPRESS Part 1 (NCT03623074) was a 3-year multicentre, randomised, controlled, double-masked trial comparing two investigational spectacle lens DOT designs (Test 1, Test 2) and standard single vision Control lenses in 256 North American children aged 6-10 years. Children completing Part 1 (n=200) were invited to enrol in CYPRESS Part 2 (NCT04947735) for an additional 1-year period. In Part 2, Test 1 (n=35) and Control groups (n=42) continued with their original lens assignment and the Test 2 group (n=21) were crossed over to Test 1 (DOT 0.2) lenses. The co-primary endpoints were change from baseline in axial length (AL) and cycloplegic spherical equivalent refraction (cSER)., Results: Test 1 spectacle lenses demonstrated superiority to the Control in both co-primary endpoints: with a difference between means (Test 1-Control) of -0.13 mm for AL (p=0.018) and 0.33 D for cSER (p=0.008) in Part 1 and -0.05 mm for AL (p=0.038) and 0.13 D for cSER (p=0.043) in Part 2. Comparing treatment effects in Part 1 and 2 suggests that COVID-19 public health restrictions negatively impacted treatment efficacy in study years 2 and 3., Conclusion: DOT 0.2 spectacle lenses are safe and effective at reducing myopia progression, with additional benefit evident in year 4 of wear. These results support the hypothesis that a mild reduction in retinal contrast can slow myopia progression in young children. The unprecedented disruption in participant schooling and lifestyle during the COVID-19 pandemic may have depressed treatment efficacy in Part 1., Competing Interests: Competing interests: DL, JSH, MMP and VT are SightGlass Vision employees. VT has a patent application for methods and devices for reducing myopia in children. JW reports research grants from SightGlass Vision, Alcon, CooperVision and Johnson and Johnson Vision and consultancy fees from SightGlass Vision and meeting and/or travel support from Alcon and CopperVision. XZ reports grants from SightGlass Vision and Reality Labs Research at Meta Platforms Technologies, LLC and consultancy fees/honoraria from SightGlass Vision and CooperVision. GY, RC and CH report contracts with SightGlass Vision, Johnson & Johnson Vision, CooperVision and Essilor. JN and MN report royalties/licenses, consulting fees and meeting and/or travel support from SightGlass Vision. JN and MN are cofounders and have stock ownership in SightGlass Vision, and are listed as Inventors on patents issued for DOT lens, owned by the University of Washington. TWC reports consulting fees, meeting and/or travel support, patents and stock ownership in his role as employee, officer and board member for SightGlass Vision. DJ reports consulting/honoraria from CooperVision, Hoya, SightGlass Vision, Alcon and Essilor. JSW reports consulting fees from CooperVision, DopaVision, Essilor, International Myopia Institute, SightGlass Vision and Thea. JSW reports grants from SightGlass Vision and Espansione and shares in Wolffsohn Research Limited., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)