Light Therapy for Managing Sleep, Behaviour, and Mood Disturbances in Dementia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Rest-activity and sleep-wake cycles are controlled by the endogenous circadian rhythm generated by the suprachiasmatic nuclei (SCN) of the hypothalamus. Degenerative changes in the SCN appear to be a biological basis for circadian disturbances in people with dementia, and might be reversed by stimulation of the SCN by light. OBJECTIVES: The review assesses the efficacy of bright light therapy (BLT) in managing sleep, behaviour, mood, and cognitive disturbances associated with dementia. SEARCH STRATEGY: The trials were identified from a search of the Specialized Register of the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group on 27 January 2004 using the terms "bright light*", "light box*", "light visor*", "dawn-dusk*", phototherapy (MESH), phototherapy, "photo therapy", "light therapy" "light treatment", light*. SELECTION CRITERIA: All relevant, randomized controlled trials in which BLT, at any intensity and duration, was compared with a control group for the effect on managing sleep, behavioural, mood, and cognitive disturbances (as well as changes in institutionalization rates and cost of care) on people with dementia of any degree of severity. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three reviewers independently assessed the retrieved articles for relevance, methodological quality, and extracted data from the selected studies. The statistically significant differences in changes in outcomes from baseline to end of treatment and from baseline to follow-up between the light therapy and control groups were examined. Each study was summarized using a measure of effect (e.g. mean difference). Owing to lack of homogeneity between studies, their results were not combined. MAIN RESULTS: Five studies met the inclusion criteria. However, only three were included in the analyses because of inappropriate analyses reported or inability to retrieve the required data from the investigators. This review revealed no adequate evidence of the effectiveness of BLT in managing sleep, behaviour, and mood disturbances associated with dementia. REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence to assess the value of BLT for people with dementia. The available studies are of poor quality and further research is required.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Review About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Systematic review | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Review About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Systematic review | high |
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".