MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1979666632 · doi:10.1080/00207450802507697

Differential Numbers of Foci of Lymphocytes Within the Brains of Lewis Rats Exposed to Weak Complex Nocturnal Magnetic Fields During Development of Experimental Allergic Encephalomyelitis

2009· article· en· W1979666632 on OpenAlexaff
Michael A. Persinger

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Neuroscience · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroscience and Neuropharmacology Research
Canadian institutionsLaurentian University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEncephalomyelitisImmunologyNocturnalNeuroscienceMedicineCentral nervous systemBiologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To discern if specific structures of the rat brain contained more foci of lymphocytes following induction of experimental allergic encephalomyelitis and exposures to weak, amplitude-modulated magnetic fields for 6 min once per hour during the scotophase, the residuals between the observed and predicted values for the numbers of foci for 320 structures were obtained. Compared to the brains of sham-field exposed rats, the brains of rats exposed to 7-Hz 50 nT (0.5 mG) amplitude-modulated fields showed more foci within hippocampal structures and the dorsal central grey of the midbrain while those exposed to 7-Hz 500 nT (5 mG) fields showed greater densities within the hypothalamus and optic chiasm. The brains of rats exposed to either the 50 nT or 500 nT amplitude-modulated 40-Hz fields displayed greater densities of foci within the midbrain structures related to rapid eye movement. Most of the enhancements of infiltrations within the magnetic field-exposed rats occurred in structures within periventricular or periaqueductal regions and were both frequency- and intensity-dependent. The specificity and complexity of the configurations of the residuals of the numbers of infiltrated foci following exposures to the different fields suggest that the brain itself may be a "sensory organ" for the detection of these stimuli.

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)0.001
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 score0.059
Threshold uncertainty score0.541

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.000
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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.288 · 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

Citations6
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of NeuroscienceSame topicNeuroscience and Neuropharmacology ResearchFrench-language works237,207