Hypersensitivity of human subjects to environmental electric and magnetic field exposure: a review of the literature.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hypersensitivity to exposure to electric and magnetic fields (EMFs) has been reported for nearly 20 years; however, the literature on the subject is still very limited. Nearly all the literature published concerns a dermatological syndrome that consists of mainly subjective symptoms (itching, burning, dryness) and a few objective symptoms (redness, dryness) appearing after individuals begin working with video display units and decreasing during absence from work. Case-control studies as well as some good but limited double-blind trials have not found any clear relationship between this syndrome and exposure to EMFs. A "general syndrome" with more general symptoms has been rarely described but seems to have a worse prognosis. The symptoms often associated with skin disorders are mainly of neurasthenic type and can cover a lot of nonspecific symptoms present in other atypical syndromes such as multiple chemical sensitivity or chronic fatigue. Most of these symptoms are allegedly triggered by exposure to different sources of EMFs, but there have been no valid etiological studies published on this more general syndrome. It appears that the so-called hypersensitivity to environmental electric and magnetic fields is an unclear health problem whose nature has yet to be determined.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".