MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1978005932 · doi:10.2466/pms.2003.97.3f.1307

Conspicuous Histomorphological Anomalies in the Hippocampal Formation of Rats Exposed Prenatally to a Complex Sequenced Magnetic Field within the Nanotesla Range

2003· article· en· W1978005932 on OpenAlexaff
Linda S. St-Pierre, Michael A. Persinger

Bibliographic record

VenuePerceptual and Motor Skills · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicElectromagnetic Fields and Biological Effects
Canadian institutionsLaurentian University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHippocampal formationHippocampusPrenatal developmentOpen fieldBiologyNuclear magnetic resonanceEndocrinologyNeuroscienceFetusPregnancyGeneticsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The brains of adult rats, exposed prenatally to one of four intensities (between 10 nanoTesla and 1.2 microTesla) of either a frequency-modulated magnetic field or a complex sequenced field designed to affect brain development, were examined histologically. Although from each intensity some rats that had been exposed to the complex sequenced magnetic field showed minor anomalies, those exposed to intensities between 30 nT and 180 nT exhibited conspicuous anomalous organizations of cells within the hippocampal formation. In other studies, rats that had been exposed during their entire prenatal development to the complex sequenced field displayed significantly more activity in the open field and poorer spatial memory during maze learning. Photomicrographs are shown of one conspicuous morphological anomaly within the right hippocampus of an adult rat exposed prenatally to the complex sequenced magnetic field with intensities between .3 mG and .5 mG (30 nT to 50 nT). The results suggest that complex magnetic fields, whose temporal structures approach the time constants of normal biochemical processes, can permanently alter the development of the brain.

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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.248
Threshold uncertainty score0.276

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.221 · 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

Citations9
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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