MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1968387526 · doi:10.2466/pms.98.3.983-984

Weekly Treatments with a Burst-Firing Magnetic Field Alters Behavior in the Elevated plus Maze after Two Sessions

2004· article· en· W1968387526 on OpenAlexaff
Randal E. Fitzpatrick, Michael A. Persinger

Bibliographic record

VenuePerceptual and Motor Skills · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicElectromagnetic Fields and Biological Effects
Canadian institutionsLaurentian University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOpen fieldWeaningLitterSalineElevated plus mazeAnimal scienceBehavioural despair testMedicineClomipramineAnesthesiaEndocrinologyAntidepressantInternal medicineHippocampusBiologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In a split-litter design, rats were either injected with 15 mg/kg of clomipramine or saline from postnatal Days 8 through 21. Other rats from the same litters were not injected. When the rats were 90 days of age, the rats were tested once per week for five weeks in an elevated plus maze that contained two open arms (no alls) and two walled arms. Following each test, they were exposed (total of 4 exposures) for 30 min. to a burst-firing magnetic field (1 microTesla) that has been shown to reduce depression in human beings. After two treatments, the rats exposed to the burst-firing fields spent about half the amount of time in the open arms compared to the sham-field exposed rats. The interaction between adult treatment and whether the rats had received the antidepressant before weaning was not significant statistically. These results suggest that at least two weekly sessions may be required before significant changes in behavior occur after weekly 30-min. exposures to these potentially "therapeutic" magnetic fields.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.934
Threshold uncertainty score0.395

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.236 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations1
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePerceptual and Motor SkillsSame topicElectromagnetic Fields and Biological EffectsFrench-language works237,207