A multiphysics computational framework for evaluating ATP response and thermal loading during skeletal muscle photobiomodulation

The model suggests that increasing PBM power can raise tissue heating without continuing to improve the modeled cellular-energy response. That is a useful dose-design principle, but it is not a human treatment or safety study.

Zhang L, Liu Y, Qin S, Lin Y, Zheng S, Jiang X.
Scientific Reports · Publication date: 2026-10-11
Added to site: 2026-10-12
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-026-66515-z

Published October 11, 2026. Added to Neurofeedback.com October 12, 2026 after full-text review.

Modalities

Photobiomodulation, Near-infrared light modeling

Clinical focus

Optical dose, Thermal loading, Modeled ATP-related response

Population

No human or animal participants; a layered skin, fat and skeletal-muscle geometry was modeled

Sample

Not applicable; simulations compared 810, 850 and 900 nm light across power and beam-radius settings during a 180-second exposure

Intervention / method

The framework coupled light transport, heat transfer and a phenomenological ATP-related activity model, then assessed optical power, beam radius, tissue temperature and cumulative thermal exposure

Comparator

Simulated wavelength, optical-power and beam-radius settings

Clinician summary

At 850 nm with a 4 mm Gaussian beam radius, modeled muscle-averaged ATP-related response reached a near-flat maximum of about 14.73% between 0.50 and 0.75 W, then fell to about 12.29% at 2.50 W. Maximum modeled temperature rose from 38.584°C at 0.75 W to 45.857°C at 2.50 W. These are conditional simulation outputs, not validated clinical thresholds.

How to interpret the findings

The ATP component is phenomenological and sensitive to the selected inhibition threshold. Tissue properties, geometry and boundary conditions were assumed, and the diffusion approximation may understate near-surface peaks. The authors call for experimental measurements and higher-fidelity light-transport models before quantitative physiological, clinical or safety interpretation.

Equipment and disclosures

The work is a computational framework rather than a test of a commercial PBM device. No BrainMaster equipment attribution is made.

The authors declared no competing interests. The checked publisher page did not state a funding source. No correction, retraction or expression-of-concern relationship appeared in the retained Crossref record.

Related evidence

Compare findings from the same clinical area, including mixed results.