INFLUENCE OF A COMPLEX MAGNETIC FIELD APPLICATION IN RATS UPON THERMAL NOCICEPTIVE THRESHOLDS: THE IMPORTANCE OF POLARITY AND TIMING
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The application of a weak (1 microTesla) complex magnetic field pattern with a relevant electrophysiological signature produced an analgesic response in rats to thermal stimuli when the pattern was presented once every 4 sec for 30 min through iron-core solenoids. In one experiment, the burst-firing pattern was presented once every 4 s for 30 min and restricted to the positive polarity, negative polarity or a bipolar equivalent. The strongest analgesia occurred when the burst-firing pattern was presented with positive polarity or as the typical bipolar signal. Administrations of the burst-firing pattern once per week for four consecutive weeks produced analgesia that was clearly evident during the first, third, and fourth weeks but not during the second week of treatment. A telephone sensor coil (that can be readily obtained from local electronic shops) was then used instead of the solenoids along with an audio (.wav) file to generate the magnetic field; the analgesia was still apparent. However, when the magnetic pattern was generated from a compact disc source the analgesia was not evoked. The current results suggest that these fields can be generated through simple commercial devices controlled by available computer software.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".