MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2046234571 · doi:10.3109/09553002.2013.754554

Intermittent exposures to nanoTesla range, 7 Hz, amplitude-modulated magnetic fields increase regeneration rates in planarian

2012· article· en· W2046234571 on OpenAlexaff
Noa Gang, G. H. Parker, Robert M. Lafrenie, Michael A. Persinger

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Radiation Biology · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPlanarian Biology and Electrostimulation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of SudburyLaurentian University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPlanarianRegeneration (biology)AmplitudeIntensity (physics)Magnetic fieldExtremely low frequencyElectromagnetic fieldRange (aeronautics)BiologyNuclear magnetic resonancePhysicsMaterials scienceOpticsCell biology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: To discern if physiologically and naturally-patterned electromagnetic fields presented with base frequencies of 7 Hz within the 100 nT range could facilitate regeneration in planarian similar to microTesla, 60 Hz fields. METHODS: In two separate experiments planarian were decapitated and exposed to either 140 or 400 nT peak amplitude-modulated 7 Hz magnetic fields for 6 min once per hour, 8 h per night for 5 days. Daily regeneration rates and movement velocities (cm/min) were measured. RESULTS: The planarian exposed to either intensity magnetic field exhibited faster regeneration of photoreceptors and auricles compared to sham field and reference groups. The magnetic field exposure accommodated 50% of the variance during the faster growth days. CONCLUSIONS: Naturally-patterned, intermittently-presented weaker electromagnetic fields may produce enhanced regeneration rates in flat worms similar to those observed for 60 Hz, higher intensity 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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.320
Threshold uncertainty score0.443

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.275 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations4
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Radiation BiologySame topicPlanarian Biology and ElectrostimulationFrench-language works237,207