MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Transient effect of low-intensity magnetic field on human motor control

2006· article· en· W2132242440 on OpenAlexaff
Alexandre Legros, Philippe Gaillot, Anne Beuter

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Engineering & Physics · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicElectromagnetic Fields and Biological Effects
Canadian institutionsSt Joseph's Health CareLawson Health Research Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExtremely low frequencyTransient (computer programming)Intensity (physics)AttenuationNuclear magnetic resonanceAudiologyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationMagnetic fieldMedicineComputer sciencePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There is no consensus with respect to how extremely low frequency (ELF) magnetic fields (MF) affect biological systems. However, this information is crucial to establishing new guidelines for: (i) the new design of electronic devices, (ii) working conditions of exposed workers (e.g. electric linepersons), and in a general manner (iii) policies for human risk management. This study evaluates the effect of a sinusoidal 50 Hz, 1000 microT MF centered at the level of the head on human postural tremor of the index finger, using the wavelet analysis method. In addition to the detection of transient events in tremor time series linked with MF, this method was used to evaluate the differences between MF "on" and "off" conditions and between real and sham exposure in a counterbalanced protocol. Results indicate that neither transient events nor "off-on" or "on-off" MF transition effects were present in the postural tremor time series. Surprisingly, an unexpected significant time dependent decrease in tremor average power was noted along the 20s recordings. Interestingly, this effect was significantly more pronounced in the presence of MF. These results suggest a relaxing effect of ELF MF on motor control resulting in an attenuation of postural tremor intensity.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.479

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 head0.002
GPT teacher head0.196
Teacher spread0.194 · 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

Citations12
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical Engineering & PhysicsSame topicElectromagnetic Fields and Biological EffectsFrench-language works237,207