Effect of Visible Light Therapy in Patients with Somatic Pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: The purpose of this study is to evaluate the effect of visible light therapy for the management of somatic pain. Method: Subjects consisted of 42 patients with pain and were divided into two groups; control (n=22) and experimental (n=20) groups. Control group received conventional physical therapy only, while experimental group received additional light therapy with blue light (light intensity 4080 lux, wave length 581 nm, distance from lamp 5 cm). Intensity of pain was assessed by visual analogue scale (VAS) and McGill pain questionnaire. Sympathetic skin response was measured to assess the status of autonomic nervous system. VAS and McGill pain questionnaire were administered before treatment and at 1 day, 2 days, 3 days, 1 week, and 2 weeks after treatment. Sympathetic skin response were performed before and 2 weeks after treatment. Results: 1) In both experimental and control groups, VAS became significantly lower at two weeks after treatment compared to pretreatment scale (p＜0.05). 2) McGill pain questionnaire showed significantly lower scores two weeks after treatment compared to pretreatment score, only in experimental group (p＜0.05). 3) Experimental group showed significantly lower McGill pain questionnaire score than control group at two weeks after treatment (p＜0.05). 4) Latency and amplitude of sympathetic skin response showed no significant difference between experimental and control groups. Conclusion: Visible light therapy can be used as an effective therapeutic modality for the management of symptomatic pain in combination with conventional physical therapy.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".