Specific Patterns of Weak (1 microTesla) Transcerebral Complex Magnetic Fields Differentially Affect Depression, Fatigue, and Confusion in Normal Volunteers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Normal young adults were exposed for 20 min once per week for a total of 3 sessions to 1 of 7 configurations of weak (1 microTesla) magnetic fields or to a sham field. The fields were spatially rotated and applied through the brain at the level of the temporoparietal lobes. The Profile of Mood States was taken before and after each session. Before, during, and after the treatments, heart rate, plethysmographic activity, and skin conductance were measured by computer. The results indicated that the burst-firing pattern previously demonstrated to be effective for clinical depression, improved mood and vigour compared to the sham-field or other treatments. Subjects who were exposed to a burst-firing pattern, a complex-sequenced pattern, and a pattern whose electrical equivalents stimulate long-term potential in hippocampus slices also exhibited less psychometric fatigue after the sessions compared to subjects who received the sham field or random-sequenced fields. These results replicate previous studies and indicate that rationally designed complex patterns of magnetic fields may simulate pharmacological treatments.
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) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".