?

Log in

HW5

Below I have posted two polls for you to grade your classmates.

Because it is important, novel and time-consuming task, I will have to move the rest of the homework and reading to the future. Thus, for HW5, there will be no reading assignments.

Please grade your classmates objectively and spend time reading their home work reports.

While you are reading, please leave comments to their posts. Empty comments (using a period, for example)  are also valuable as they notify, that you have visited and read the posts.

Please read instructions for grading. Note that scoring system is unusual - it uses percentile principle - thus the differences are inflated and the students are rated in relative value to average in the group, which would be 5.5.

Please check your submission before pressing the submit button, there is no way to undo the submission.

Please be thorough and objective. I don't have specific instructions for grading consistency. You will have decide for yourself how much negative weight you assign to skipped HW assignments and reflect this in "amount of work" poll. Thus some of you may ignore the fact that some of questions have been skipped by others or otherwise.

Please pay attention that the amount of text in HW of others may be artificially inflated by extensive pasting of search results and citations from the web. Thus total amount of work is not the same as total amount of text. While browsing works of others you would have to correct for that.

Poll: Quality of homework done

Please grade your classmates using 1 criterion for this poll:
Quality of work done.

Browse the works of all 9 classmates.
Please note that first 2 Alex's works were placed in different place:
http://community.livejournal.com/lllt/

On a piece of paper sort your classmates accorging to Quality of work done.
Don't score yourself - give yourself score 10 (this is for technical reasons, I don't have a way to exclude your name from the poll, but if everybody gives self a score 10 - this will not affect the final average outcome.).

Name - 1 - least Quality of work done
Name - 2
Name - 3
Name - 4
Name - 5
Name - 6
Name - 7
Name - 8
Name - 9 - most Quality of work done
Your name - 10

Enter the scores at the poll.
Please double check your results before submitting the poll, there is no way to undo the submission.
Submit the poll.
Please keep the paper copy with the scores.

Poll #1268116 Quality

Quality of work done by lllt_zachary

Mean: 5.60 Median: 5.5 Std. Dev 2.42
1
0(0.0%)
2
1(10.0%)
3
2(20.0%)
4
0(0.0%)
5
2(20.0%)
6
2(20.0%)
7
0(0.0%)
8
2(20.0%)
9
0(0.0%)
10
1(10.0%)

Quality of work done by lllt_tyler

Mean: 6.00 Median: 5.5 Std. Dev 2.28
1
0(0.0%)
2
0(0.0%)
3
1(10.0%)
4
3(30.0%)
5
1(10.0%)
6
1(10.0%)
7
1(10.0%)
8
1(10.0%)
9
1(10.0%)
10
1(10.0%)

Quality of work done by lllt_tim

Mean: 6.70 Median: 7 Std. Dev 2.76
1
1(10.0%)
2
0(0.0%)
3
1(10.0%)
4
0(0.0%)
5
1(10.0%)
6
0(0.0%)
7
3(30.0%)
8
0(0.0%)
9
3(30.0%)
10
1(10.0%)

Quality of work done by lllt_peter

Mean: 3.70 Median: 1.5 Std. Dev 3.44
1
5(50.0%)
2
1(10.0%)
3
0(0.0%)
4
1(10.0%)
5
0(0.0%)
6
0(0.0%)
7
1(10.0%)
8
0(0.0%)
9
1(10.0%)
10
1(10.0%)

Quality of work done by lllt_meghan

Mean: 8.10 Median: 8 Std. Dev 1.30
1
0(0.0%)
2
0(0.0%)
3
0(0.0%)
4
0(0.0%)
5
1(10.0%)
6
0(0.0%)
7
1(10.0%)
8
4(40.0%)
9
3(30.0%)
10
1(10.0%)

Quality of work done by lllt_lana

Mean: 6.60 Median: 7 Std. Dev 2.69
1
0(0.0%)
2
1(10.0%)
3
1(10.0%)
4
1(10.0%)
5
0(0.0%)
6
2(20.0%)
7
0(0.0%)
8
1(10.0%)
9
3(30.0%)
10
1(10.0%)

Quality of work done by lllt_jaime

Mean: 7.40 Median: 7.5 Std. Dev 1.85
1
0(0.0%)
2
0(0.0%)
3
0(0.0%)
4
1(10.0%)
5
1(10.0%)
6
1(10.0%)
7
2(20.0%)
8
1(10.0%)
9
3(30.0%)
10
1(10.0%)

Quality of work done by lllt_brian

Mean: 5.80 Median: 6 Std. Dev 2.68
1
0(0.0%)
2
2(20.0%)
3
1(10.0%)
4
0(0.0%)
5
1(10.0%)
6
2(20.0%)
7
1(10.0%)
8
1(10.0%)
9
1(10.0%)
10
1(10.0%)

Quality of work done by lllt_amber

Mean: 5.80 Median: 6.5 Std. Dev 3.06
1
1(10.0%)
2
2(20.0%)
3
0(0.0%)
4
0(0.0%)
5
1(10.0%)
6
1(10.0%)
7
2(20.0%)
8
0(0.0%)
9
2(20.0%)
10
1(10.0%)

Quality of work done by lllt_alex

Mean: 7.10 Median: 7.5 Std. Dev 2.21
1
0(0.0%)
2
0(0.0%)
3
1(10.0%)
4
1(10.0%)
5
0(0.0%)
6
2(20.0%)
7
1(10.0%)
8
1(10.0%)
9
3(30.0%)
10
1(10.0%)

Poll: Amount of homework done

Please grade your classmates using 1 criterion for this poll:
amount of homework done. 

Only the average scores will be visible to others. What you submit (your name and what grades you give to others will be visible only to me).

Browse the works of all 9 classmates.
On a piece of paper sort your classmates accorging to amount of work done.
Don't score yourself - give yourself score 10 (this is for technical reasons, I don't have a way to exclude your name from the poll, but if everybody gives self a score 10 - this will not affect the final average outcome.).

Name - 1 - least amount of work done
Name - 2
Name - 3
Name - 4
Name - 5
Name - 6
Name - 7
Name - 8
Name - 9 - most amount of work done
Your name - 10

Enter the scores at the poll. Use the principle - one score - one name. No two people should get equal scores. Every score, including 1 should have someone's name associated with it. This scheme of grading is relative (a drawback) but it amplifies the objective differences between subjects (experimental signal is amplified and measured better).
Please double check your results before submitting the poll, there is no way to undo the submission.
Submit the poll.
Please keep the paper copy with the scores.

Poll #1268107 Amount

Amount of work done by lllt_zachary

Mean: 5.20 Median: 5 Std. Dev 2.64
1
1(10.0%)
2
1(10.0%)
3
0(0.0%)
4
2(20.0%)
5
3(30.0%)
6
0(0.0%)
7
0(0.0%)
8
2(20.0%)
9
0(0.0%)
10
1(10.0%)

Amount of work done by lllt_tyler

Mean: 5.50 Median: 5 Std. Dev 2.16
1
0(0.0%)
2
0(0.0%)
3
2(20.0%)
4
2(20.0%)
5
2(20.0%)
6
1(10.0%)
7
1(10.0%)
8
1(10.0%)
9
0(0.0%)
10
1(10.0%)

Amount of work done by lllt_tim

Mean: 6.40 Median: 6 Std. Dev 2.29
1
0(0.0%)
2
1(10.0%)
3
0(0.0%)
4
1(10.0%)
5
1(10.0%)
6
3(30.0%)
7
0(0.0%)
8
2(20.0%)
9
1(10.0%)
10
1(10.0%)

Amount of work done by lllt_peter

Mean: 2.10 Median: 1 Std. Dev 1.97
1
7(70.0%)
2
1(10.0%)
3
0(0.0%)
4
0(0.0%)
5
0(0.0%)
6
2(20.0%)
7
0(0.0%)
8
0(0.0%)
9
0(0.0%)
10
0(0.0%)

Amount of work done by lllt_meghan

Mean: 7.70 Median: 8.5 Std. Dev 2.05
1
0(0.0%)
2
0(0.0%)
3
1(10.0%)
4
0(0.0%)
5
1(10.0%)
6
0(0.0%)
7
1(10.0%)
8
2(20.0%)
9
4(40.0%)
10
1(10.0%)

Amount of work done by lllt_lana

Mean: 6.20 Median: 6.5 Std. Dev 2.44
1
0(0.0%)
2
1(10.0%)
3
1(10.0%)
4
1(10.0%)
5
0(0.0%)
6
2(20.0%)
7
2(20.0%)
8
1(10.0%)
9
1(10.0%)
10
1(10.0%)

Amount of work done by lllt_jaime

Mean: 7.30 Median: 7.5 Std. Dev 1.79
1
0(0.0%)
2
0(0.0%)
3
0(0.0%)
4
1(10.0%)
5
1(10.0%)
6
1(10.0%)
7
2(20.0%)
8
2(20.0%)
9
2(20.0%)
10
1(10.0%)

Amount of work done by lllt_brian

Mean: 4.11 Median: 3 Std. Dev 2.64
1
0(0.0%)
2
4(44.4%)
3
1(11.1%)
4
1(11.1%)
5
1(11.1%)
6
0(0.0%)
7
1(11.1%)
8
0(0.0%)
9
0(0.0%)
10
1(11.1%)

Amount of work done by lllt_amber

Mean: 6.50 Median: 7.5 Std. Dev 2.73
1
0(0.0%)
2
1(10.0%)
3
2(20.0%)
4
0(0.0%)
5
0(0.0%)
6
1(10.0%)
7
1(10.0%)
8
2(20.0%)
9
2(20.0%)
10
1(10.0%)

Amount of work done by lllt_alex

Mean: 7.10 Median: 8 Std. Dev 2.66
1
0(0.0%)
2
0(0.0%)
3
2(20.0%)
4
1(10.0%)
5
0(0.0%)
6
0(0.0%)
7
2(20.0%)
8
0(0.0%)
9
3(30.0%)
10
2(20.0%)

HW4

1. Read and comment all worth commenting in past home works of others. Your collective works are very good. Reading them is pleasant and educational.

2. Pick a topic related to the theme of the course and invest 20-30 in research on Internet using special searches (quotes , stars and minuses). See if you can localize an Internet search engine allowing wild cards.

3. Continue looking up unfamiliar terms and definitions from this list

image

4.  Read a review by Shindl et al. on LLLT

  • Write a paragraph or two of reflections trying not to be trivial.
  • What new did you learned? 
  • How will LLLT change the medicine in the future?
  • What scientific and technological issues have to be addressed by future researchers?

5. Finish reading the part of the Watson book. (up to page 113). Briefly address my typical questions about career and funding in what you learned.

I am back

See you in the class

HW3

Download and print out the reading assignment in advance.

1. Continue looking up the terms-definitions and counts in Google of the terms in the general plan for the course.

image

Report what you find.

2. Do a brief research on Internet of the history and experimental evidence for morphogenic field. Report what you find. Don't expect to discover much... Check out Pubmed, Google book search and Amazon book search. Use phrase search (quote marks) for the term "morphogenic field".

3. Do same for acupuncture. Expect to find a lot.

  • Main answers to look for:
  • What western research confirmed the existence of meridians?
  • What are the scientific claims of acupuncture
  • What are practical applications of acupuncture
  • How many people are currently being treated by acupuncture?
  • What is laser acupuncture?
  • Is there a scientific link between LLLT and acupuncture?
  • Did anybody else except Popp visualize meridians?

Check out Google, Youtube (Laser acupuncture, scientific basis acupuncture, experimental evidence acupuncture), pubmed, Google scholar, etc.

4. Familiarize yourself with CRISP (NIH grants database). Search for acupuncture, and "laser medicine" "laser treatment". Don't expect to see there anything for morphogenic field, biophotons, or LLLT.

5. Spend a minute searching for scientific basis of astrology. Just to see how much is there.

6 Reading - Double Helix pages 38-75. (40 MB) (note the file is bigger, the rest will be for the next assignment).

Write a brief outline of the story from two points of view -

(1) career considerations and development of main heroes

(2) financial considerations, who was financed by what entities - Bragg, Perutz, Pauling, Watson, Crick, Franklin and Wilkins (I am not sure in which part of the book this info is mentioned).

6. Keep commenting homework of others.

HW assignment #2

1. As an exercise, look through the all previous HW reports of others and leave comments under entries of others. Ideally comments should be positive and non-trivial. If nothing is to be said, but you want to note you have read the post, the tradition is to leave an empty comment containing only a period (.) Commenting some of the comments and replying to comments may be a good idea.

Everybody's entrees can be found here:

http://community.livejournal.com/lllt/friends

and here http://community.livejournal.com/lllt/

2. Register for Gmail. This will give you access to some of the Google tools that we will be using in the course and will serve as a protection of your privacy while participating in some of the course-related discussion groups on Internet. Please be aware that your posts left in Internet discussion groups are likely to stay in Public domain forever, therefore I suggest not to disclose your full name and location. Revealing the first name should be fine.

For convenience, you may set up automatic forwarding of Gmail emails to your other email. For that go to Settings, forwarding.

Subscribe to the LLLT Internet discussion group. This is  Laserworld LLLT discussion group hosted by Topica. (sorry, during the class, I gave you a wrong reference to this, now it is correct).

Subscribe at the bottom of the page: http://www.laser.nu/  (Use your new Gmail address. ) Spend few minutes browsing past discussions.

3. F-A Popp chapter on Biophotons (27 Mb)

Read only essential parts of the chapter. Summarize available answers to these questions:

    1. What is the experimental evidence for biophotons?
    2. What are physical properties of biophotons?
    3. How does the discovery of biophotons change the science?

4. Voeikov chapter on Mitogenic Radiation (12 Mb)

Address these questions:

    1. Briefly outline the history of research of mitogenic radiation, list key names and experiments.
    2. How mitogenic radiation is produced?
    3. What are physical characteristics of mitogenic radiation?
    4. What biological effects of mitogenic radiation are mentioned?

Summary of first class and reading

    We started by getting a feel for the class’s basic understanding of biology and related topics through answering questions.  I thought this was a good way of doing this and it served as a nice review of some basic biological terms.  We next discussed the human genome project and how the vast amount of data on the human genome was put together in a single database.  Next we reviewed the size of the human genome (3*10^9) and discussed a computer analogy of how much information that really amounts to.  Basically it is like filling an entire computer hard drive with the letters AGCT to represent the different bases.  We next talked about a method for cloning bacteria and looking at the cloned DNA.
    Next we briefly discussed how sequences of DNA were conserved throughout evolution and how sequences could be compared using a conservation score.  We reviewed the concept of splicing where junk portions of pre-MRNA are cut out.  Some statistics that were presented were that every cell has 99.9% of DNA in common and humans have about 30,000 genes with 21,000 classical genes.  I’m a little confused by what the term classical genes means.  We also learned that red blood cells have no DNA, which I found quite surprising.
    Finally, we learned the following central hypothesis in lllt:  Genes talk to each other using light (electromagnetic waves) and secret genes are affected by light in lllt.  We ended the class with a presentation on main sources of information on lllt and watched part of a film on the life of James Watson who helped discover the structure of DNA.

    I found the reading, an autobiography of James Watson, interesting because it showed how much luck and small decisions are involved in the most profound discoveries in science.  You get the feeling when reading this that Watson was a pretty average scientist.  Additionally, he was never really interested in biochemistry.  However, you also get the feeling that it takes a source of inspiration to carry you through you’re learning and research.  Without believing that nucleic acids were the key to unlocking the gene, Watson would never have made his ultimate discovery.

 

Homework 1

Course-Career Relation:

This course is just a replacement for a required course for my Master's degree, and therefore usually wouldn't be a course I'd be taking.  Though I plan to complete MS in the BMES program here, I plan to coach soccer for a career and therefore at a quick glance this course really doesn't have much to offer me towards my career.  However, its not beyond the realm of possibility that within a few years, LLLT could become a common treatment for athlete injuries and could come into common use in collegiate training rooms -- thus knowledge on the emerging technology could be useful coaches looking for quick solutions to player muscle and joint pains.

Watson Autobiography Summary:

Overall The Double Helix was surprisingly interesting to read, as I expected it to be much more dull and scientific, which it definitely had its points, but also had a tendency to stray (anyone else notice the bit on page 14 about Rosy’s “quite stunning” appearance – just out of curiosity Dr. Rempel, what chapter do sex scenes start
J?). 

Google Summary:

After searching the keywords “low level laser therapy”, the first thing that surprised me on the results page was the number of advertisements and just the overall current market for LLLT.  As many of the previous students have written, there seems to be an insurance company that has a strong foothold on the LLLT market, but I personally did not expect this much to be going on in the field.  However, as I will be noting this with all the other search engines, the total number of hits for those keywords was 365,000.  An example of one of the doctors marketing off this new field is at:

 

http://www.drz.org/asp/cp/laser.asp

 

where he talks about documented cases of LLLT on his patients, many times with picture evidence.  He also gives a brief overview of the field, and how that laser therapy works, which is helpful for new people to the field, such as most of our class.

Google Scholar Summary:

Google Scholar showed 183,000 results for the keywords “low level laser therapy”.  However, for this courses purposes, I found that this article:

 

http://www.springerlink.com/content/r3p3465vm1474830/

 

seemed to be a great starting point, giving a good historic background to the field, as well as, the most up to date research at that time.

Pubmed Summary:

When searching Pubmed I found 84 articles under the keywords “low level laser therapy”, and as you can see from my summary of Google, Google Scholar and Pubmed, as the articles become more credible and for the most part, more in-depth and field specific, the results began to dwindle.  Obviously I wasn’t going to read them all, but instead I tried to focus my reading on the general wavelengths used in most articles.  The wavelength ranged from 308nm to 830nm, with most studies being done at 308, 670, or 830nm.


Youtube Summary:

When searching Youtube, the first videos I found were the same surplus of videos that Amber spoke about in her summary.  However, I also saw one company that has a video on Youtube, advertising the ability to regrow hair with the use of lasers, see:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QH7bEQt5cZ0

 

This video is supported by a news report I found on Youtube stating, “low-level laser that stops hair loss, and in many cases, studies show it even stimulates new hair growth.”

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eh32fweRVjU&NR=1


8/27 Lecture Summary:

I figure a quick outline should suffice for a summary of the class, as much of the class jumped back and forth between topics I placed each idea covered is placed under one of a few major subjects:

Biology Background:

  • DNA --> RNA --> proteins
  • Human genome = 3 x 10^9 Base Pairs = 3 GBp or G nucleotides
    • Jim Kent, influencial to human genome research and creation of sites similar to BLAST
  • No DNA in RBC in humans, but common in blood of birds and fish
  • DNA splicing --> comparable to deletion of computer files
  • Double helix --> major & minor groove
    • Waston & Crick, Age 23 & 35 respectively, in 1953 used crystallization purification and XRD analysis to show the DNA consisted of a double helix and had antiparallel stranded
    • Also noted that Watson has stated he does not believe in LLLT

LLLT (low-level light [or laser] therapy -- major topic of course):

·         Mainly focuses on red and green light

·         Important things to note from lecture slides on LLLT

o    Jan Turner and Las Hode – “inventors” of laser therapy (2004)

o    However, laser therapy has been around since 1962

§  Publications in 1965 & 1967 on lasers healing wounds

·         Ray Lanzafame – Rochester, NY (www.naalt.org)

o    Noticed patients of his surgeries recovered faster after using lasers

o    Found in tests that even just having a red laser guide healing time decreased

·         Even cheap $10 pen lasers and LED’s having healing properties, but the higher cost lasers have gone through human testing, etc for insurance purposes

Movie based on Watson and Crick:

·         Showed interaction of with Morris Wilcons, Bragg, etc.

·         Introduction of Watson & Crick

 

I Used “low level laser therapy” for all searches   

Google
    A nice survey of available literature on lllt can be found at http://www.cigna.com/customer_care/healthcare_professional/coverage_positions/medical/mm_0115_coveragepositioncriteria_lowlevel_laser_therapy.pdf (first result in Google).  Although, this site may be biased because it is primarily concerned with insurance coverage for lllt, it is a good source for clinical results of lllt.  The article concludes that the available literature is inconclusive on the effects of lllt for reducing pain.
    Much of the reason that results are many times inconclusive for the therapeutic affect of lllt is that there is no set standard for determining the dose and wavelength of light to be used.  The following presentation provides a lot of information regarding why the correct dose is so hard to define:  http://www.laser.nu/lllt/pdf/theimpossibledose.pdf.  Basically it boils down to the difference between surface energy density (J/cm2) and volume (3d) energy density (J/cm3), and the difficulty in calculating how much of the dose the target cells will ultimately receive. 

Google Scholar:
    A review of literature findings of the affects of lllt on patients experiencing chronic joint pain can be found at http://www.physiotherapy.asn.au/AJP/49-2/AustJPhysiotherv49i2Bjordal.pdf.  The authors conclude that lllt can significantly reduce pain in patients with chronic joint pain versus a placebo provided that the dose is over a baseline level calculated to reduce inflammation.  Specifically lllt has been found to reduce inflammation by “reduction of PGE2-levels and inhibition of cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2)” in cells.  However, the article also says that there is a lack of consistency in the frequency of treatment and the mean baseline pain scores used in the majority of studies looked at.

Pubmed:
    In the following article, a low level laser prototype to test the biostimulation affect of lasers used in medical acupuncture:  http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pmcentrez&artid=549208.
The article concludes that while the specifications of the laser prototype were better than or similar to existing products, more research is needed to pinpoint the mechanism of which laser acupuncture works.
    A study of the use of lllt for superficial wound healing can be found at http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pmcentrez&artid=522143.  The study concludes that lllt is effective at promoting wound contraction verses a sham laser.