Next

PhD Research in Clinical Psychoneuroimmunology

I'm planning to pursue a PhD at the Pruimboom Institute after completing a Masters, focusing on large-scale intervention studies that leverage wearable technology to investigate cPNI principles. Recent advances in consumer wearables (Apple Watch, Oura Ring, Whoop) make it possible to collect continuous physiological data from hundreds or thousands of participants simultaneously. This solves the scaling problem that's mostly limited cPNI research to small, expensive studies.

My proposed research program includes four connected studies:

Study 1: Hypercapnic Breathing Protocols

I currently practice hypercapnic breathing (elevated CO2) for one hour daily as part of my cancer protocol. The question is: what CO2 concentrations, at what pressures, produce measurable effects on autonomic regulation, inflammation markers, and metabolic pathways relevant to cancer?

This will be a small, lab-controlled study (N=20-50). Participants will breathe controlled CO2 mixtures at various pressures while we measure HRV, blood gases, inflammation markers, and subjective responses. The goal is to establish dose-response curves and identify optimal protocols before attempting to scale.

This is mechanistic work. Expensive, careful, necessary. It establishes whether the intervention I'm using has measurable physiological effects and, if so, at what parameters.

Study 2: Meaning Intervention for Cancer Patients

Cancer patients often describe themselves as having no purpose other than being a cancer patient. Their identity collapses into their diagnosis. The disease becomes not just what they have but who they are.

From a cPNI perspective, this matters. Loss of meaning is a physiological state, not just a psychological one. People who've lost the thread of why their life matters show measurable changes in immune function, inflammation, and autonomic regulation.

This study will recruit cancer patients who identify primarily as "cancer patient" rather than person-with-cancer-who-has-a-life. The intervention: structured meaning work including values clarification, legacy projects, and purpose exploration.

We'll measure both psychological outcomes (identity, sense of purpose) and physiological markers (HRV via wearables, potentially inflammation markers if funding allows). The hypothesis is that reconnecting with meaning beyond the diagnosis will show up in both domains.

This is the study closest to my own experience. It's also the hardest to design well. Meaning is slippery. Identity is complex. But if we can demonstrate that this kind of work produces measurable physiological changes, it validates what clinicians have observed for decades but couldn't prove.

N=50-100. Timeline: 12 weeks with structured interventions and follow-up measurements.

Study 3: Blue Light Restriction Compliance

We know blue light exposure affects sleep. What we don't know is what cutoff time actually matters and whether people can comply with restrictions in real-world conditions.

This study will compare different screen-off times: no screens after 10pm, 9pm, 8pm, or sunset. Participants track their compliance and we measure sleep quality via wearables. The goal is a dose-response curve: how much restriction is needed to see effects, and which protocols people can actually maintain?

This is practical research. If we find that 9pm cutoff produces 80% of the benefit with 3x better compliance than sunset cutoff, that's actionable information.

N=200-400. Remote participation. 8-12 weeks. It’s straightforward to run and highly publishable because it addresses a real gap in the literature.

Study 4: Integrated Intervention Protocol

The final study synthesizes findings from the previous three plus other validated interventions (cold exposure, grounding, etc.). We'll design a comprehensive protocol and test it against single interventions.

The question: are these interventions additive? Does combining cold exposure, breathwork, meaning work, and sleep optimization produce effects beyond any single practice? Or are there diminishing returns? What's the minimum effective protocol?

This will be the capstone study. N=400-600. It requires the earlier studies to be complete so we know what we're integrating and at what parameters.

Why This Matters

Traditional cPNI research can be expensive and on a small-scale. Blood tests, clinic visits, and intensive monitoring limit sample sizes to dozens of participants. Wearable technology changes this. We can now measure autonomic function, sleep architecture, and recovery in hundreds of people simultaneously at a fraction of the cost.

This isn't just methodological convenience. Larger samples mean we can detect smaller effects, run subgroup analyses by condition, and establish real-world effectiveness rather than lab-based efficacy. We can study interventions as people actually practice them, not in controlled conditions that don't generalise.

The goal is publishable, rigorous research that advances cPNI from an understudied, promising framework to an established clinical practice.

Timeline

Year 1: Hypercapnia lab study, blue light compliance study

Year 2: Meaning intervention study, design integrated protocol

Year 3: Run integrated protocol study

Year 4: Complete analysis, publish findings, thesis completion

This page will be updated as my ideas for research topics for the PhD program develops.