MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2056572218 · doi:10.1016/j.jalz.2013.05.1360

P3–286: Light therapy for improving cognitive, sleep, functional, behavioural or mood disturbances in dementia: A Cochrane review

2013· review· en· W2056572218 on OpenAlexaff
Dorothy Forbes, Catherine Blake, Emily Thiessen, Shelley Peacock, Pamela Hawranik

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicCircadian rhythm and melatonin
Canadian institutionsAthabasca UniversityWestern UniversityUniversity of SaskatchewanUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCochrane LibraryDementiaLight therapyMoodMedicineRandomized controlled trialCINAHLMeta-analysisCircadian rhythmDark therapyPsycINFOMEDLINESystematic reviewCognitionClinical psychologyPsychiatryInternal medicinePsychological intervention

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 may be reversed by stimulation of the SCN by light. This is an update of our previous systematic review published in The Cochrane Library in 2009. To assess the evidence of effectiveness of light therapy in improving cognitive, sleep, functional, behavioural, or mood disturbances associated with dementia. The Specialized Register of the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group (CDCIG), The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL and LILACS as well as other databases were searched on 27 November 2012. The inclusion criteria were a ll relevant, randomized clinical trials in which light therapy, at any intensity and duration, was compared with a control group for the effect of improving cognition, sleep, function, behavioural, or mood disturbances in persons with dementia of any type and degree of severity. Two reviewers independently assessed the retrieved articles for relevance and risk of bias, and will extract data from the selected studies. Statistically significant differences in outcomes between the treatment and control groups will be examined. Each study will be summarized using a measure of effect. Our previous review included nine trials, however, three could not be included in the analyses because of unavailable data. The review revealed no adequate evidence of the effectiveness of light therapy in improving symptoms associated with dementia. However, our most recent search results revealed three new studies that meet our inclusion criteria. These studies are showing promise in slowing cognitive decline and function (Laborie, 2010), in increasing sleep wake time (McCurry, 2011), and increasing sleep efficiency with sleep becoming more consolidated (Nowak 2008). While there was insufficient evidence to assess the effect of light therapy for people with dementia in our previous review, these three additional studies are showing promising results. They will be added to our previous review, further examined and analysed using meta-analysis, with a completed review by June 2013.

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

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.053

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.007
Bibliometrics0.0090.010
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.107
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.235 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlzheimer s & Dementia→Same topicCircadian rhythm and melatonin→French-language works237,207→