MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4309437588 · doi:10.1002/bem.22426

A Pilot Study Evaluating the Feasibility of Testing for an Acute Impact of Human Exposure to a Power‐line Frequency Magnetic Field on Blood Cortisol and Thyroid‐Stimulating Hormone

2022· article· en· W4309437588 on OpenAlexafffund
Alexandre Legros, Michael Corbacio, Sébastien Villard, Martine Souques, Jacques Lambrozo

Bibliographic record

VenueBioelectromagnetics · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicElectromagnetic Fields and Biological Effects
Canadian institutionsLawson Health Research InstituteWestern University
FundersLawson Health Research Institute
KeywordsBioelectromagneticsMedicineHormoneHuman growth hormoneStress testing (software)ThyroidInternal medicinePhysiologyGrowth hormoneMagnetic fieldPhysicsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Numerous studies have been carried out on the potential effects of an extremely low frequency (ELF-0-300 Hz) magnetic field (MF) on human health. However, there is limited data on the effect of a high exposure level to ELF MFs for a prolonged period. Therefore, the objective of this pilot work was to demonstrate the feasibility of a study evaluating the stress hormone concentrations resulting from a 10-min exposure to a 60 Hz MF of several tens of thousands of µT. In this pilot study, human volunteers were thus exposed for the first time to a 60 Hz, 50 mT MF for a duration of 10 min. Stress hormone levels were measured before (once), during (twice) and after (once) this 10-min exposure period. The small sample size (n = 5) did not allow to conduct standard inferential statistical tests and no conclusion regarding the exposure effects can be drawn. However, this study demonstrates the feasibility of using a simple blood testing material in a protocol testing for the effect of a 10-min exposure to a high MF level in healthy human volunteers. © 2022 Bioelectromagnetics Society.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Non-randomized trialhigh
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Bench or experimentalmedium
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.002
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: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.304 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.

The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.

Study designNon-randomized trial · Bench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBioelectromagneticsSame topicElectromagnetic Fields and Biological EffectsFrench-language works237,207