Blue light emitted by devices like smartphones, computers, and televisions is becoming a major factor disrupting our sleep cycles. Research reveals that a significant number of Americans use electronic devices close to bedtime, contributing to poor sleep quality. Reducing exposure to blue light, particularly in the evening, is a simple yet effective way to help your body prepare for restful sleep.

What Is Blue Light?

How Does Blue Light Impact Circadian Rhythms?

Circadian rhythms are 24-hour cycles that control essential bodily functions, including sleep. Light is the primary factor that aligns these rhythms with day and night. Historically, exposure to sunlight during the day helped set our body clocks, signaling when to be awake and when to sleep. However, the widespread use of artificial lighting and electronic devices has introduced more light exposure after dark, disrupting these natural cycles.

Blue light, in particular, has the strongest impact on circadian rhythms. During daylight hours, blue light helps us feel alert by stimulating the brain, raising body temperature, and increasing heart rate. But in the evening, exposure to blue light can confuse the body’s internal clock, suppressing melatonin—the hormone responsible for making us feel sleepy. As a result, our brains may remain in “daytime mode,” preventing us from winding down for the night.

Health Consequences Of Disrupted Sleep

Persistent disruption of circadian rhythms can lead to a range of health issues, including metabolic disorders, poor mental health, and increased risk for conditions like depression and anxiety. Furthermore, the inability to sleep well at night affects cognitive performance, mood, and overall well-being. Chronic exposure to blue light in the evening may significantly contribute to these negative health outcomes.

Devices That Emit Blue Light

Many common devices in our daily lives emit blue light, including:

- Smartphones and tablets

- Computer monitors and laptops

- Televisions and e-readers

- LED and fluorescent lighting

- Video game consoles

How To Minimize Blue Light Exposure

To reduce the effects of blue light on your sleep, here are some practical strategies:

1. Turn off screens before bed: Try to avoid using electronic devices at least two to three hours before bedtime. Reducing screen time helps prevent blue light from interfering with melatonin production.

2. Adjust your lighting: Dim your home’s lights or switch to warmer-toned lighting in the evening. You can also use lamps with red or orange light, which are less likely to impact your circadian rhythms.

3. Night mode settings: Many smartphones and computers have a "night mode" feature that reduces blue light emission. Make use of these features to limit exposure in the hours leading up to bedtime.

4. Blue light-blocking glasses: Special glasses designed to filter out blue light may be helpful for some individuals. These glasses can block or reduce the melatonin-suppressing effects of blue light.

5. Apps for blue light reduction: There are several smartphone and computer apps available that reduce blue light emission, allowing you to use your devices before bed without disturbing your sleep.

6. Create a sleep-friendly environment: If you can’t control light sources in your bedroom, consider using an eye mask to block out ambient light and promote better sleep.

A single photograph of someone’s face might carry real clues about their health and how long they’re likely to live, at least according to new AI tools built by researchers at Mass General Brigham in Boston.

What the researchers built

The team trained a large AI foundation model called FAHR-Face, short for Foundation Artificial Intelligence for Health Recognition, on more than 40 million facial images.

From that base model, they built two specialised tools: FAHR-FaceAge, which estimates a person’s biological age from a single photo, and FAHR-FaceSurvival, fine-tuned on 34,389 photos of cancer patients to predict survival risk directly from facial appearance.

“I was pretty surprised to find out that we could pick up signs of mortality risk from just a facial photograph,” corresponding author is Dr. Raymond Mak, a radiation oncologist at Mass General Brigham Cancer Institute told CNN. The study is published in The Lancet Digital Health.

What the two tools actually look at

The two algorithms focus on entirely different parts of the face. “The age estimation algorithm is looking at the area around the temples, the area on the forehead, above the eyes and then what we call the nasolabial fold,” Mak said, while “the mortality risk prediction algorithm is looking at a totally different part of the face... the bridge of the nose and the area under the eyes.”

Also Read: ADHD Linked To 71% Higher Risk Of Death; Suicide And Injuries Among Top Concerns

The results

Among 122 cancer patients flagged by FAHR-FaceSurvival as high-risk, 52.5% died within 90 days, compared with about 2% of the 975 patients in the lowest-risk group. Separately, 21% of patients whose biological age came back more than 20 years older than their actual age died within 90 days, against about 6% of those whose biological age was at least 10 years younger than their chronological age.

The researchers also found that cosmetic changes, including surgery, Botox, or makeup, didn’t throw off the models’ performance, according to the Mass General Brigham release.

An eerie echo of ancient medicine

The facial regions both AI models rely on, the nose, temples, and the area around the eyes, closely match what the Greek physician Hippocrates described around 400 BC in his Book of Prognostics as signs of approaching death: “the nose sharp, the eyes sunken, the temples fallen in.”

Mak told CNN the algorithms had no exposure to Hippocrates’ text and were trained purely on photographs and outcomes data. “Hearing Hippocrates echo over millennia in our algorithms was very eerie,” he said.

Not ready for the clinic yet

Outside experts urged caution. Dr. Wilbur Lam of Emory University, who wasn’t involved in the study, called it “an extremely compelling study” with robust associations, but said its “true clinical utility... will need to be demonstrated prospectively,” and flagged open questions about how well it performs across different facial features, skin tones, and age groups.

Miroslaw Bober of the University of Surrey, also not involved in the study, said the findings shows “convincing evidence” of a statistical link but cautioned that “predicting an outcome is not the same as explaining it.”

He noted the study never tested whether the AI model picks up anything a doctor’s own assessment wouldn’t, since doctors’ general health evaluations weren’t measured for comparison. “This is a promising proof of concept, but it is not ready for clinical use,” Bober said.

An individual's income, education, gender and place of residence can impact their risk of developing chronic diseases, as well as their access to diagnosis and treatment, according to a new World Health Organization (WHO) report.

The report highlights how social and economic inequalities affect the burden of noncommunicable diseases (NCDs) like cancer, cardiovascular diseases, diabetes and chronic respiratory diseases.

Published on October 20, State of Inequality: Noncommunicable Diseases and Their Risk Factors is WHO's first comprehensive global assessment of inequalities in NCDs and their risk factors. The report is based on data sources from nine countries and examines 35 indicators, using national data that collected over the past decade.

NCDs account for about three-quarters of deaths worldwide but their impact is not shared equally across different countries and their populations. The report examines how differences in economic status, education, sex, age, disability, employment, migration status and location influence disease risks and access to healthcare.

“This is the first effort to systematically measure inequalities in NCDs and their risk factors on a global scale,” said Dr Ahmad Reza Hosseinpoor, who leads WHO's health inequality monitoring team. “The findings show which populations are being left behind.”

How Income And Education Influence Chronic Disease Risk

The report found that people with lower levels of education in low and middle income countries tend to have higher rates of hypertension and diabetes.

Education can affect access to credible health information, opportunities to make informed health decisions and the capability to navigate technically complex healthcare services.

Income becomes a key factor that affects whether people's ability to afford nutritious food, preventive care, medicines and routine medical check-ups.

The report found that the poorest and least-educated women were less likely to receive cervical cancer screening. Tobacco use was also higher among men who were less educated than their educated counterparts.

Also read: G155E H1N1 Mutation In US Raises Concerns: Can This Year’s Flu Shot Still Protect You?

Risk Is Also Affected By Gender And Location

Differences in healthcare access and risks were also observed between men and women. Men were more likely to use tobacco and consume alcohol, but men with hypertension were less likely to be diagnosed and treated than women.

Women were less likely to meet recommended physical activity levels, while obesity was more common among women, particularly in low and middle-income countries.

Geography was another key factor as in many underprivileged countries, people living in rural areas had less access to hypertension diagnosis and treatment, as well as cervical cancer screening.

Rural households could also face greater exposure to household air pollution, while urban populations often experienced greater exposure to outdoor air pollution.

People with disabilities and migrants may also face financial, administrative, geographical or language barriers that make prevention, screening and treatment harder to access.

Also read: Lead Poisoning: WHO Warns There Is No Known Safe Level; Flags Risks From Paint, Spices and Cookware

What Needs To Change According To WHO

WHO said countries should use inequality data to identify marginalised populations who face barriers to enable direct prevention and treatment services towards them.

The report recommends expanding interventions to reduce NCD risks, improving access to screening and treatment in weak communities, and collecting data that reveal differences between population groups.

“Inequality data are not simply about documenting differences – they are a tool for action,” said Dr Alain Labrique, director of WHO's Data, Digital Health, Analytics and AI Department. “They help countries better tailor policies and programmes, identify gaps in coverage and track whether progress is reaching all population groups.”

People diagnosed with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) had a 71% higher rate of death from any cause than those without the condition, new review published in JAMA Network Open states. The findings highlight health risks that extend beyond ADHD's core symptoms.

The study also found higher rates of death by suicide and injuries. ADHD medication, on the other hand, was reported to cause overall lower mortality.

Researchers from University College London (UCL) and the University of Liverpool reviewed 19 observational studies involving nearly 16 million people across three continents.

Suicide And Injuries Among Key Concerns

The review found that people with ADHD had an 89% higher rate of death by suicide and a 55% higher rate of death from intentional or unintentional injuries, compared to people without ADHD.

Deaths from natural causes, including those related to physical health conditions, were also 27% higher.

Researchers said several factors could contribute to these findings. People with ADHD may experience difficulties with impulse control and emotional regulation, as well as higher rates of other mental health conditions. Challenges with attention may also contribute to accidental injuries, including road accidents.

Physical health risks due to lifestyle may play a role too. Smoking, alcohol use, substance abuse and accessing healthcare could affect these results.

Senior author Professor Joshua Stott of UCL said, “We found that people with ADHD face an increased risk not only of death by suicide and injury, but also of deaths by natural causes, adding to evidence that health inequalities faced by people with ADHD are broad and wide-ranging.”

Also read: ADHD: Debunking Common Misconceptions About ADHD

ADHD Medication Linked With Lower Mortality

The review found that people with ADHD who took prescribed medication had a 25% lower risk of death from any cause than those who did not take medication.

However, this finding was based on only three of the 19 studies included in the review. The researchers said that more research is needed to understand whether medication directly reduces mortality risk.

First author Lucy Corrigan of the University of Liverpool said, “Our findings provide early evidence to suggest that medication may play an important role in supporting the health of people with ADHD, but this is based on a small number of studies and further research is needed to clarify this link. And medication is just part of the story; many people with ADHD benefit from comprehensive, long-term treatment and support.”

Also read: Adult ADHD: How Does It Impact People's Lives? What Are Its Symptoms?

More Investigation Needed

The researchers said that all the studies included in the review were observational. This means the results show associations and cannot establish that ADHD itself causes early death or that medication prevents it. The studies also differed in their methods and in the size of the risks they reported.

Stott said, “ADHD is not by definition a life-limiting condition as the right support and treatment can help people with ADHD to live long and healthy lives. Our findings underscore the importance of ensuring that everyone who may have ADHD has access to accurate diagnosis and treatment. While ADHD diagnosis rates have risen in recent years, they may still lag behind actual prevalence, particularly for older age groups where mortality risk may be most pertinent.”