MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3217774905 · doi:10.18103/mra.v9i11.2605

Original Findings Confirmed in Replication Study: Provocation with 2.4 GHz Cordless Phone affects the Autonomic Nervous System (ANS) as measured by Heart Rate Variability (HRV)

2021· article· en· W3217774905 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Research Archives · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicElectromagnetic Fields and Biological Effects
Canadian institutionsTrent University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHeart rate variabilityMedicineProvocation testHeart rateAutonomic nervous systemAudiologyCardiologyInternal medicineBlood pressurePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This is a double-blind, placebo-controlled replication of a study that we previously conducted in Colorado with 25 subjects designed to test the effect of radio frequency radiation (RFR) generated by the base station of a cordless phone on heart rate variability (HRV). In this study, we analyzed the response of 69 subjects between the ages of 26 and 80 in both Canada and the USA. Subjects were exposed to radiation for 3-min intervals generated by a 2.4-GHz cordless phone base station (3–8 microW/cm2). Prior to provocation we conducted an orthostatic test to assess the state of adrenal exhaustion, which interferes with a person’s ability to mount a response to a stressor. A few participants had a severe reaction to the RFR with an increase in heart rate and altered HRV indicative of an alarm response to stress. Based on the HRV analyses of the 69 subjects, 7% were classified as being “moderately to very sensitive”, 29% were “little to moderately sensitive”, 30% were “not to a little sensitive” and 6% were “unknown”. These results are not psychosomatic and are not due to electromagnetic interference. Twenty-five percent of the subjects’ self-proclaimed sensitivity corresponded to that based on the HRV analysis, while 32% overestimated their sensitivity and 42% did not know whether or not they were electrically sensitive. Of the 39 participants who claimed to experience some electrical hypersensitivity, 36% claimed they also reacted to a cordless phone and experienced heart symptoms and, of these, 64% were classified as having some degree of electrohypersensitivity (EHS) based on their HRV response. Novel findings include documentation of a delayed response to radiation. This protocol underestimates the reaction to electromagnetic radiation and may provide a false negative for those with a delayed reaction and/or with adrenal exhaustion. Orthostatic HRV testing combined with provocation testing may provide a useful diagnostic tool for some sufferers of EHS when they are exposed to electromagnetic radiation. It can be used to confirm EHS but not to reject EHS as a diagnosis since not everyone with EHS has an ANS reaction to electromagnetic radiation.

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 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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.353
Threshold uncertainty score0.488

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.004
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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.301 · 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