No Evidence for Genotoxic Effects from 24 h Exposure of Human Leukocytes to 1.9 GHz Radiofrequency Fields
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The current study extends our previous investigations of 2-h radiofrequency (RF)-field exposures on genotoxicity in human blood cell cultures by examining the effect of 24-h continuous-wave (CW) and pulsed-wave (PW) 1.9 GHz RF-field exposures on both primary DNA damage and micronucleus induction in human leukocyte cultures. Mean specific absorption rates (SARs) ranged from 0 to 10 W/kg, and the temperature within the cultures was maintained at 37.0 +/- 1.0 degrees C for the duration of the 24-h exposure period. No significant differences in primary DNA damage were observed between the sham-treated controls and any of the CW or PW 1.9 GHz RF-field-exposed cultures when processed immediately after the exposure period by the alkaline comet assay. Similarly, no significant differences were observed in the incidence of micronuclei, incidence of micronucleated binucleated cells, frequency of binucleated cells, or proliferation index between the sham-treated controls and any of the CW or PW 1.9 GHz RF-field-exposed cultures. In conclusion, the current study found no evidence of 1.9 GHz RF-field-induced genotoxicity in human blood cell cultures after a 24-h exposure period.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".