Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This article represents a review of the literature, mainly from Russian sources, dealing with the therapeutic application of low-intensity electromagnetic radiation in the millimeter band applied to experimental and clinical oncology. METHOD: At the early stage of these studies, efficacy and safety of millimeter electromagnetic radiation (extremely high frequency [EHF]) was proved for various types of malignant tumors. The majority of the further studies demonstrated the high efficacy and safety of millimeter wave radiation in treating patients suffering from both benign and malignant tumors. RESULTS: Developments led to treatment on skin melanoma, cancer of the ear-nose-throat, bowel and breast cancer, cancer of the uterus, lung, and stomach, solid tumors, as well as lymphoma. The main indications for this therapy are (1) preparation prior to radical treatment; (2) prevention and treatment of side-effects and complications from chemotherapy and radiotherapy; (3) prevention of metastases, relapses, and dissemination of the tumor; (4) treatment of the paraneoplastic syndrome; and (5) palliative therapy of incurable patients. CONCLUSIONS: In spite of the fact that not all mechanisms underlying effects of EHF therapy are known as yet, this therapeutic modality has been shown to have great potential in clinical oncology from studies performed in Eastern Europe and Russia.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".