ArticleNpj biological timing and sleep2026
Quantifying the biological impacts of nightlights: implications for sleep and circadian health in children.
Article in Npj biological timing and sleep, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Given the widespread use of nightlights, we characterized an assortment of popular products to evaluate their potential to disrupt sleep and circadian rhythms in children. Spectral irradiance was measured for 25 top-rated nightlights (79 settings) under laboratory (source-level) and simulated bedroom (typical use) conditions. Nightlights varied in form (handheld, projector, tabletop, wall plug-in) as well as intensity and color settings. Melanopic equivalent daylight illuminance (EDI) estimated circadian input and was compared against biologically relevant thresholds for pediatric sleep. Across conditions, melanopic EDI values spanned several orders of magnitude, from 0 lx to >100,000 lx, with some devices varying substantially by setting. With source-level characterizations, only 3/25 products consistently remained below 5 lx melanopic EDI (levels known to phase shift circadian rhythms and suppress melatonin in children), and 2 also met the <1 lx consensus nighttime recommendation for adults. Under typical-use conditions, 14/25 products remained below 5 lx melanopic EDI (11 were <1 lx) on at least one setting, with most being red-toned, low-intensity, and positioned farther from the bed, though many of those would not support vision. Clear clinical guidance, public health recommendations, and improved product labeling standards are needed to reduce circadian disruption and promote healthier sleep in children.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.