MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3135886864 · doi:10.1093/jas/skab063

Structured water: effects on animals

2021· review· en· W3135886864 on OpenAlexaff
Michael I. Lindinger

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Animal Science · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMagnetic and Electromagnetic Effects
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This review focuses on the effects of structured water (SW) on animals when it is consumed on a daily basis. SW is liquid water that is given altered H-bonding structure by treatment with various forms of energy including magnetic fields and light. While most of the research has been conducted on 'magnetized' water, which has structure of short duration, recent research has examined effects of a SW with stability of at least 3.5 mo. A variety of laboratory and farm animals have been studied over the past 20 yr. Consistent (3 or more studies) responses among animals consuming SW for 1 mo or more include increased rate of growth, reduced markers of oxidative stress, improved glycemic and insulinemic responses in diabetics, improved blood lipid profile, improved semen and spermatozoa quality, and increased tissue conductivity as measured using bioelectrical impedance analysis. While it is known that fluids in and around cells and molecules are structured, it remains unknown if this endogenous water structuring is influenced by drinking SWs. The mechanisms by which SW affects biological systems are unknown and require investigation. Effects of SW, when taken up by biological systems, are likely associated with altered water structuring around biological surfaces, such as proteins and membranes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.299 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations31
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Animal ScienceSame topicMagnetic and Electromagnetic EffectsFrench-language works237,207