Post-exposure Effects of PEMF on ROS levels in H2O2-treated Glioblastoma Cell Line
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pulsed electromagnetic fields (PEMF) of extremely low frequency are non-ionizing and use a series of magnetic pulses of electrical energy into exposed biological tissue to accelerate tissue repair without induced thermal effects.Till date, there is no report showing the post-exposure effects of PEMF on ROS production in human glioblastoma cells treated with hydrogen peroxide (H2O2).Therefore, the present work aims to investigate possible post-exposure effects of 75 Hz PEMF on basal ROS levels in U87-MG cells treated with H2O2 at different time intervals.Cells are grouped as sham-control (group-I), cells treated with H2O2 for 30 min, 24 h, and 48 h (group-II), and cells post-exposed to PEMF following H2O2 treatment with the same duration as group II (group-III).After cell viability measurement, basal ROS levels in each group are determined spectrophotometrically.Statistical analysis is carried out by SPSS v.23.The cell viability of group-III for each H2O2 treatment duration is significantly greater than the group II.This result indicates that post-PEMF exposure has possible cytoprotective effects against H2O2 challenge.ROS levels of group-III are significantly lower than the group-II which indicates preventative effects of post-PEMF exposure against ROS production in H2O2 treated U87-MG cells.Overall results have been demonstrated the possible cytoprotective effect of post-PEMF exposure against deleterious effects of oxidative stress triggered by the different time intervals of H2O2 treatment in U87-MG cells.We firmly believe the present work may shed light on further works focusing on molecular, biochemical, and cellular effects of PEMF exposure against antioxidant defence mechanisms and their triggered redox-based neuronal pathways.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".