MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4312421374 · doi:10.18103/mra.v10i10.3208

Pulsed Electromagnetic Field Therapy (Seqex, Theta) Promotes Well-being as assessed by Heart Rate Variability: A Pilot Study

2022· article· en· W4312421374 on OpenAlex
Magda Havas, Sheena Symington

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.

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Research Archives · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicElectromagnetic Fields and Biological Effects
Canadian institutionsTrent University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHeart rate variabilityMedicineBalance (ability)Heart rateElectromagnetic fieldCardiologyAudiologyInternal medicinePhysical therapyPhysicsBlood pressure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Frequency therapy, in the form of pulsed electromagnetic fields, is becoming increasingly popular within the scientific/medical community as is heart rate variability for assessing wellness. These two techniques were combined to determine if a particular pulsed electromagnetic field treatment (Seqex, Theta) had any beneficial effects (based on Brain Tap HRV) on 20 volunteers ranging in age from 21-81. Treatment consisted of a 36-minute exposure to 4–8 Hz with a magnetic flux density between 12 to 68 mG and several proprietary waveforms. Treatment was conducted at a wellness clinic that had low levels of electromagnetic fields/radiation and heart rate variability was tested immediately before and immediately following treatment. Significant benefits were documented for 72% of the participants and these were associated with reduced stress and a lower biological age (vs. chronological age) as indicators on Brain Tap HRV. Indices for cardiovascular health; LF/HF balance, neurohormonal regulation and psychoemotional state all improved overall as did energy resources and energy balance (catabolic vs. anabolic). Individuals who believed they were sensitive to electromagnetic fields (i.e. had electrohypersensitivity) also improved. Some of the beneficial results persisted over a 24-hour period. Despite this positive outcome, 28% of the participants either showed no objective change or were worse (based on heart rate variability) immediately following treatment. We conclude that pulsed electromagnetic field treatments may be highly beneficial even among those who have electrohypersensitivity resulting in reduced stress and improved homeostasis. However, treatments should be provided in an electromagnetic clean environment for optimal results and objective testing with heart rate variability, or some other assessment tool, should be used to ensure that the patient is receiving a treatment that is beneficial.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.612
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.311 · 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