ArticleMilitary medicine2020
Intense Light Pretreatment Improves Hemodynamics, Barrier Function and Inflammation in a Murine Model of Hemorrhagic Shock Lung.
Article in Military medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Light therapy in medicine: where do we stand?Annals of translational medicine · 2026Review
- Circadian Rhythms in Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome: Molecular Mechanisms and Therapeutic Implications.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- Intense light mitigates hypoxia-induced right ventricular remodeling and dysfunction through reducing inflammation associated with PF4Genes & diseases · 2026Article
- Intense light as potential future therapy for myocardial injury in patients after non cardiac surgery: lessons from mice and men.Annals of translational medicine · 2025Article
- Circadian Influences on Myocardial Ischemia-Reperfusion Injury and Heart Failure.Circulation research · 2024Review
- Intense light as anticoagulant therapy in humans.PloS one · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
introductionHemorrhagic shock is a primary injury amongst combat casualties. Hemorrhagic shock can lead to acute lung injury, which has a high mortality rate. Based on studies showing the role of intense light for organ-protection, we sought to evaluate if intense light pretreatment would be protective in a murine model of hemorrhagic shock lung. MATERIALS AND
methodsAfter exposure to standard room light or to intense light (10 000 LUX), mice were hemorrhaged for 90 minutes to maintain a mean arterial pressure (MAP) of 30-35 mmHg. Mice were then resuscitated with their blood and a NaCl infusion at a rate of 0.2 ml/h over a 3-hour period. During resuscitation, blood pressure was recorded. At the end of resuscitation, bronchoalveolar lavage was analyzed for alveolar epithelial barrier function and inflammation. To get insight into the relevance of intense light for humans, we performed a proteomics screen for lung injury biomarkers in plasma from healthy volunteers following intense light therapy.
resultsWe found that intense light pretreated mice had improved hemodynamics and significantly lower albumin, IL-6, and IL-8 levels in their bronchoalveolar lavage than controls. We further discovered that intense light therapy in humans significantly downregulated proinflammatory plasma proteins that are known to cause acute lung injury.
conclusionsOur data demonstrate that mice exposed to intense light before hemorrhagic shock lung have less lung inflammation and improved alveolar epithelial barrier function. We further show that intense light therapy downregulates lung injury promoting proteins in human plasma. Together, these data suggest intense light as a possible strategy to ameliorate the consequences of a hemorrhagic shock on lung injury.
Indexed as
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.