Can infrared light really be doing what we claim it is doing? Infrared light penetration principles, practices, and limitations.

Near infrared (NIR) light has been shown to provide beneficial treatment of traumatic brain injury (TBI) and other neurological problems. This concept has spawned a plethora of commercial entities and practitioners utilizing panels of light emitting diodes (LEDs) and promising to treat patients with TBI and other disorders, who are desperate for some treatment for their untreatable conditions. Unfortunately, an LED intended to deliver photonic energy to the human brain does not necessarily do what an LED pointed at a mouse brain does. There is a problem of scale. Extensive prior research has shown that infrared light from a 0.5-watt LED will not penetrate the scalp and skull of a human. Both the properties of NIR light and the manner in which it interacts with tissue are examined. Based on these principles, the shortcomings of current approaches to treating neurological disorders with NIR light are explored. Claims of clinical benefit from low-level LEDbased devices are explored and the proof of concept challenged. To date, that proof is thin with marginal benefits which are largely transient. Extensive research has shown fluence at the level of the target tissue which falls within the range of 0.9J/cm2 to 15J/cm2 is most effective in activating the biological processes at the cellular level which underlie direct photobiomodulation. If low-level infrared light from LED devices is not penetrating the scalp and skull, then these devices certainly are not delivering that level of fluence to the neurons of the subjacent brain. Alternative mechanisms, such as remote photobiomodulation, which may underlie the small and transient benefits for TBI symptoms reported for low-power LED-based NIR studies are presented. Actionable recommendations for the field are offered. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]