Exploring the Effect of Combined Transcranial and Intra-Oral Photobiomodulation Therapy Over a Four-Week Period on Physical and Cognitive Outcome Measures for People with Parkinson’s Disease: A Randomized Double-Blind Placebo-Controlled Pilot Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Neuroprotection against Parkinson's disease degeneration by photobiomodulation has been reported in animal models but no true placebo-controlled human studies have been published. OBJECTIVE: To understand if photobiomodulation therapy can produce clinically significant differences in physical performance measures in people with Parkinson's disease; and what frequency of treatment is necessary to initiate clinical change. METHODS: In a participant and assessor-blinded, randomized, placebo-controlled pilot study, 22 participants received either sham and/or active laser photobiomodulation (904 nm, 60 mW/diode, 50 Hz) for 33 s to each of 21 points at the cranium and intra-orally, on one, two or three times/week for 4 weeks. Two treatment phases were separated by a 4-week wash-out (Phase 2). Upper and lower limb physical outcome measures were assessed before and after each treatment phase. The Montreal Cognitive Assessment was evaluated prior to treatment Phase 1, and at the end of treatment Phase 3. RESULTS: Montreal Cognitive Assessment remained stable between start and end of study. No measures demonstrated statistically significant changes. With regular treatment, the spiral (writing) test and the dynamic step test were most sensitive to change in a positive direction; and the 9-hole peg test demonstrated a minimum clinically important difference worthy of further investigation in a larger, adequately powered clinical trial. A placebo effect was noted. CONCLUSION: The results support the notion that combined transcranial and intra-oral photobiomodulation therapy needs to be applied at least 2 to 3 times per week for at least four weeks before some improvement in outcome measures becomes evident. Longer courses of treatment may be 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 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".