Radical pair model for magnetic field effects on NMDA receptor activity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor is a prominent player in brain development and functioning. Perturbations to its functioning through external stimuli like magnetic fields can potentially affect the brain in numerous ways. Various studies have shown that magnetic fields of varying strengths affect these receptors. We propose that the radical pair mechanism, a quantum mechanical process, could explain some of these field effects. Radicals of the form [Formula: see text], where R is a protein residue that can be Serine or Tyrosine, are considered for this study. The variation in the singlet fractional yield of the radical pairs, as a function of magnetic field strength, is calculated to understand how the magnetic field affects the products of the radical pair reactions. Based on the results, the radical pair mechanism is a likely candidate for explaining the magnetic field effects observed on the receptor activity. The model predicts changes in the behaviour of the system as magnetic field strength is varied and also predicts certain isotope effects. The results further suggest that similar effects on radical pairs could be a plausible explanation for various magnetic field effects within the brain.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".