MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2154815397 · doi:10.1098/rsif.2012.1046

Magnetoreception in laboratory mice: sensitivity to extremely low-frequency fields exceeds 33 nT at 30 Hz

2013· article· en· W2154815397 on OpenAlexafffund
Frank S. Prato, Dawn Desjardins‐Holmes, Lynn Keenliside, Janice M. DeMoor, John A. Robertson, Alex W. Thomas

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of The Royal Society Interface · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicElectromagnetic Fields and Biological Effects
Canadian institutionsSt Joseph's Health CareLawson Health Research InstituteWestern University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMagnetoreceptionEarth's magnetic fieldMagnetic fieldNociceptionExtremely low frequencyPhysicsNeuroscienceNuclear magnetic resonanceBiophysicsBiologyMedicineInternal medicineReceptor

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Magnetoreception in the animal kingdom has focused primarily on behavioural responses to the static geomagnetic field and the slow changes in its magnitude and direction as animals navigate/migrate. There has been relatively little attention given to the possibility that weak extremely low-frequency magnetic fields (wELFMF) may affect animal behaviour. Previously, we showed that changes in nociception under an ambient magnetic field-shielded environment may be a good alternative biological endpoint to orientation measurements for investigations into magnetoreception. Here we show that nociception in mice is altered by a 30 Hz field with a peak amplitude more than 1000 times weaker than the static component of the geomagnetic field. When mice are exposed to an ambient magnetic field-shielded environment 1 h a day for five consecutive days, a strong analgesic (i.e. antinociception) response is induced by day 5. Introduction of a static field with an average magnitude of 44 µT (spatial variability of ±3 µT) marginally affects this response, whereas introduction of a 30 Hz time-varying field as weak as 33 nT has a strong effect, reducing the analgesic effect by 60 per cent. Such sensitivity is surprisingly high. Any purported detection mechanisms being considered will need to explain effects at such wELFMF.

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 score0.072
Threshold uncertainty score0.371

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.215 · 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

Citations28
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of The Royal Society InterfaceSame topicElectromagnetic Fields and Biological EffectsFrench-language works237,207