Heatstroke doubles risks for cataracts, Japanese study finds ⁠91%

By Tomoko Otake⁠0%

5/13/2026, 2:03:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 14 faulty reasoning types, including Recency Bias, Appeal to Authority, and Primacy Effect, with Post Hoc (False Cause) as the most egregious example at 59.8% saturation with 61 hits. Analysis detected 433 faulty-reasoning hits from 102 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 85% and a BS Rank of ⁠91% (1,999 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 90.90% of the article peer group.

With another brutally hot summer just around the corner, a team of Japanese researchers has a stark message: Heat stress could damage your eyesight. 
A review of Japanese health insurance records covering 2.46 million people found that those who have suffered from heatstroke are twice as likely to develop cataracts. 
The condition clouds the eye lens and blurs vision. 
In a study recently published in the Environmental Research journal, the researchers at the Nagoya Institute of Technology (NITech) said the risk of cataracts is 1.96 times higher for those with a history of heatstroke. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Tomoko Otake: 1.6%The Japan Times: 3.5%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 25.5%Tomoko Otake: 1.2%The Japan Times: 1.9%Anchoring Bias25.5%This article: 0.0%Tomoko Otake: 3.8%The Japan Times: 4.7%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 25.5%Tomoko Otake: 2.0%The Japan Times: 1.3%Representativeness Heuristic25.5%This article: 0.0%Tomoko Otake: 0.3%The Japan Times: 0.6%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Tomoko Otake: 2.8%The Japan Times: 2.0%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 7.8%Tomoko Otake: 5.7%The Japan Times: 14.4%Framing Effect7.8%This article: 0.0%Tomoko Otake: 0.6%The Japan Times: 0.9%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Tomoko Otake: 0.7%The Japan Times: 1.3%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Tomoko Otake: 0.0%The Japan Times: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Tomoko Otake: 3.9%The Japan Times: 4.7%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 23.5%Tomoko Otake: 1.8%The Japan Times: 3.3%Pessimism Bias23.5%This article: 32.4%Tomoko Otake: 11.1%The Japan Times: 11.6%Negativity Bias32.4%This article: 0.0%Tomoko Otake: 1.3%The Japan Times: 0.8%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Tomoko Otake: 0.3%The Japan Times: 0.8%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Tomoko Otake: 0.0%The Japan Times: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Tomoko Otake: 0.0%The Japan Times: 1.0%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Tomoko Otake: 0.2%The Japan Times: 0.8%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Tomoko Otake: 0.5%The Japan Times: 1.5%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Tomoko Otake: 0.0%The Japan Times: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Tomoko Otake: 0.0%The Japan Times: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 57.8%Tomoko Otake: 1.5%The Japan Times: 2.2%Recency Bias57.8%This article: 34.3%Tomoko Otake: 0.8%The Japan Times: 0.9%Primacy Effect34.3%This article: 0.0%Tomoko Otake: 0.0%The Japan Times: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Tomoko Otake: 0.0%The Japan Times: 0.2%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Tomoko Otake: 0.4%The Japan Times: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 42.2%Tomoko Otake: 7.1%The Japan Times: 5.5%Appeal to Authority42.2%This article: 0.0%Tomoko Otake: 0.2%The Japan Times: 1.7%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Tomoko Otake: 0.7%The Japan Times: 1.0%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Tomoko Otake: 0.1%The Japan Times: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 25.5%Tomoko Otake: 7.2%The Japan Times: 4.5%Hasty Generalization25.5%This article: 0.0%Tomoko Otake: 0.0%The Japan Times: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Tomoko Otake: 0.2%The Japan Times: 0.6%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 23.5%Tomoko Otake: 2.0%The Japan Times: 3.6%Appeal to Emotion23.5%This article: 0.0%Tomoko Otake: 1.3%The Japan Times: 0.9%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 59.8%Tomoko Otake: 4.2%The Japan Times: 4.2%Post Hoc (False Cause)59.8%This article: 0.0%Tomoko Otake: 0.0%The Japan Times: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Tomoko Otake: 0.7%The Japan Times: 0.5%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 8.8%Tomoko Otake: 0.4%The Japan Times: 0.1%Appeal to Nature8.8%This article: 0.0%Tomoko Otake: 0.3%The Japan Times: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Tomoko Otake: 2.0%The Japan Times: 1.1%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Tomoko Otake: 0.3%The Japan Times: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Tomoko Otake: 1.9%The Japan Times: 3.0%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Tomoko Otake: 0.0%The Japan Times: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Tomoko Otake: 0.2%The Japan Times: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Tomoko Otake: 0.1%The Japan Times: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Tomoko Otake: 0.3%The Japan Times: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Tomoko Otake: 0.3%The Japan Times: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 34.3%Tomoko Otake: 2.6%The Japan Times: 4.6%Unattributed Quote34.3%This article: 0.0%Tomoko Otake: 0.9%The Japan Times: 1.8%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 23.5%Tomoko Otake: 3.3%The Japan Times: 9.0%Biased Writer Voice23.5%This article: 0.0%Tomoko Otake: 2.0%The Japan Times: 1.6%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Tomoko Otake: 0.0%The Japan Times: 0.6%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Tomoko Otake: 0.0%The Japan Times: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Tomoko Otake: 0.7%The Japan Times: 0.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

102 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker34%attributed speech67writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageNagoya Institute of Technology (NITech) • 35 words • 100.0% coverage
100%flagged-word coverage
35 attributed words100% of attributed speech100% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Nagoya Institute of Technology (NITech): 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-35.8 ptsWriter: 35.8%Nagoya Institute of Technology (NITech): 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.