MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399809149 · doi:10.1089/pho.2023.0179

Photobiomodulation Treatment with a Home-Use Device for COVID-19: A Randomized Controlled Trial for Efficacy and Safety

2024· article· en· W4399809149 on OpenAlexaff
Lew Lim, Nazanin Hosseinkhah, Mark Van Buskirk, Andrea Berk, Genane Loheswaran, Zara Abbaspour, Mahta Karimpoor, Alison Smith, Kai Fai Ho, Abhiram Pushparaj, Michael Zahavi, Alexander White, Jonathan Rubine, Brian Zidel, Christopher Henderson, Russell Gene Clayton, David Roy Tingley, David Miller, Mahroo Karimpoor, Michael R. Hamblin

Bibliographic record

VenuePhotobiomodulation Photomedicine and Laser Surgery · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLaser Applications in Dentistry and Medicine
Canadian institutionsImpactThornhill Medical (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)2019-20 coronavirus outbreakRandomized controlled trialSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)MedicineBetacoronavirusMedical emergencyIntensive care medicineVirologyInternal medicineOutbreak

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Photobiomodulation therapy (PBMT) using devices to deliver red and/or near-infrared light to tissues has shown promising effects in clinical settings for respiratory diseases, including potential benefits in managing symptoms associated with COVID-19. Objective: To determine if at-home self-administered PBMT for patients with COVID-19 is safe and effective. Methods: This was a randomized controlled trial (RCT) carried out at home during the COVID-19 pandemic (September 2020 to August 2021). The treatment group self-administered the Vielight RX Plus PBMT device (635 nm intranasal and 810 nm chest LEDs) and were monitored remotely. Eligible patients scored 4–7 (out of 7) for severity on the Wisconsin Upper Respiratory Symptom Survey (WURSS-44). Patients were randomized equally to Control group receiving standard-of-care (SOC) only or Treatment group receiving SOC plus PBMT. The device was used for 20 min 2X/day for 5 days and, subsequently, once daily for 30 days. The primary end-point was time-to-recovery (days) based on WURSS-44 question 1, “How sick do you feel today?”. Subgroup analysis was performed, and Kaplan–Meier and Cox Proportional Hazards analysis were employed. Results: One hundred and ninety-nine eligible patients (18–65 years old) were divided into two subgroups as follows: 136 patients with 0–7 days of symptoms at baseline and 63 patients with 8–12 days of symptoms. Those with 0–7 days of symptoms at baseline recovered significantly faster with PBMT. The median for Treatment group was 18 days [95% confidence interval (CI), 13–20] versus the Control group 21 days (95% CI, 15–28), p = 0.050. The treatment:control hazard ratio was 1.495 (95% CI, 0.996–2.243), p = 0.054. Patients with symptom duration ≥7 days did not show any significant improvement. No deaths or severe adverse events (SAEs) occurred in the Treatment group, whereas there was 1 death and 3 SAEs requiring hospitalization in the Control group. Conclusions: Patients with ≤7 days of COVID-19 symptoms recovered significantly faster with PBMT compared to SOC. Beyond 7 days, PBMT showed no superiority over SOC. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04418505.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.080
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.038
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.303 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations4
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhotobiomodulation Photomedicine and Laser SurgerySame topicLaser Applications in Dentistry and MedicineFrench-language works237,207