Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39263274›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in neurology2024

Can infrared light really be doing what we claim it is doing? Infrared light penetration principles, practices, and limitations.

Theodore A Henderson

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in neurology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Theodore A HendersonNeuro-Luminance, Inc., Denver, CO, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Near infrared (NIR) light has been shown to provide beneficial treatment of traumatic brain injury (TBI) and other neurological problems. This concept has spawned a plethora of commercial entities and practitioners utilizing panels of light emitting diodes (LEDs) and promising to treat patients with TBI and other disorders, who are desperate for some treatment for their untreatable conditions. Unfortunately, an LED intended to deliver photonic energy to the human brain does not necessarily do what an LED pointed at a mouse brain does. There is a problem of scale. Extensive prior research has shown that infrared light from a 0.5-watt LED will not penetrate the scalp and skull of a human. Both the properties of NIR light and the manner in which it interacts with tissue are examined. Based on these principles, the shortcomings of current approaches to treating neurological disorders with NIR light are explored. Claims of clinical benefit from low-level LED-based devices are explored and the proof of concept challenged. To date, that proof is thin with marginal benefits which are largely transient. Extensive research has shown fluence at the level of the target tissue which falls within the range of 0.9 J/cm

Indexed as

brainclass IV laserNILTNIRpenetrationphotobiomodulationtranscranialtraumatic brain injury

Identifiers

PMID39263274
PMCPMC11388112

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.