DNA Damage in Human Leukocytes after Acute<i>In Vitro</i>Exposure to a 1.9 GHz Pulse-Modulated Radiofrequency Field
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
McNamee, J. P., Bellier, P. V., Gajda, G. B., Lavallée, B. F., Lemay, E. P., Marro, L. and Thansandote, A. DNA Damage in Human Leukocytes after Acute In Vitro Exposure to a 1.9 GHz Pulse-Modulated Radiofrequency Field. Radiat. Res. 158, 534–537 (2002).Blood cultures from human volunteers were exposed to an acute 1.9 GHz pulse-modulated radiofrequency (RF) field for 2 h using a series of six circularly polarized, cylindrical waveguides. Mean specific absorption rates (SARs) ranged from 0 to 10 W/kg, and the temperature within the cultures during the exposure was maintained at 37.0 ± 0.5°C. DNA damage was quantified in leukocytes by the alkaline comet assay and the cytokinesis-block micronucleus assay. When compared to the sham-treated controls, no evidence of increased primary DNA damage was detected by any parameter for any of the RF-field-exposed cultures when evaluated using the alkaline comet assay. Furthermore, no significant differences in the frequency of binucleated cells, incidence of micronucleated binucleated cells, or total incidence of micronuclei were detected between any of the RF-field-exposed cultures and the sham-treated control at any SAR tested. These results do not support the hypothesis that acute, nonthermalizing 1.9 GHz pulse-modulated RF-field exposure causes DNA damage in cultured human leukocytes.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 it