MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Light therapy for managing cognitive, sleep, functional, behavioural, or psychiatric disturbances in dementia

2009· review· en· W2100462090 on OpenAlexaff
Dorothy Forbes, Ivan Culum, A Lischka, Debra Morgan, Shelley Peacock, Jennifer Forbes, Sean C. Forbes

Bibliographic record

VenueCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2009
Typereview
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of SaskatchewanLondon Health Sciences CentreWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDementiaMedicineSleep (system call)PsychiatryCognitionLight therapyMoodDiseaseInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 evidence of effectiveness of light therapy in managing cognitive, sleep, functional, behavioural, or psychiatric disturbances associated with dementia. SEARCH STRATEGY: The Specialized Register of the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group (CDCIG), The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL and LILACS were searched on 4 March 2008 using the terms: "bright light*", "light box*", "light visor*", "dawn-dusk*", phototherapy, "photo therapy", "light therapy" "light treatment", light* . The CDCIG Specialized Register contains records from all major health care databases (The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, LILACS) as well as from many trials databases and grey literature sources. SELECTION CRITERIA: All relevant, randomized clinical trials in which light therapy, at any intensity and duration, was compared with a control group for the effect on managing cognition, sleep, function, behavioural, or psychiatric disturbances (as well as changes in institutionalization rates or cost of care) in people with dementia of any type and degree of severity. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three reviewers independently assessed the retrieved articles for relevance and methodological quality, and extracted data from the selected studies. Statistically significant differences in outcomes between the treatment and control groups at end of treatment and follow-up were examined. Each study was summarized using a measure of effect (e.g. mean difference). MAIN RESULTS: Eight trials met the inclusion criteria. However, three of the studies could not be included in the analyses because of inappropriate reported study analyses or inability to retrieve the required data from the investigators. This review revealed no adequate evidence of the effectiveness of light therapy in managing cognition, sleep, function, behaviour, or psychiatric disturbances associated with dementia. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence to assess the value of light therapy for people with dementia. Most of the available studies are not of high methodological 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

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.210
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0150.003
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.179
GPT teacher head0.399
Teacher spread0.219 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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

Citations83
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCochrane Database of Systematic ReviewsFrench-language works237,207