Emerging cancer therapies: targeting physiological networks and cellular bioelectrical differences with non-thermal systemic electromagnetic fields in the human body – a comprehensive review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A steadily increasing number of publications support the concept of physiological networks, and how cellular bioelectrical properties drive cell proliferation and cell synchronization. All cells, especially cancer cells, are known to possess characteristic electrical properties critical for physiological behavior, with major differences between normal and cancer cell counterparts. This opportunity can be explored as a novel treatment modality in Oncology. Cancer cells exhibit autonomous oscillations, deviating from normal rhythms. In this context, a shift from a static view of cellular processes is required for a better understanding of the dynamic connections between cellular metabolism, gene expression, cell signaling and membrane polarization as states in constant flux in realistic human models. In oncology, radiofrequency electromagnetic fields have produced sustained responses and improved quality of life in cancer patients with minimal side effects. This review aims to show how non-thermal systemic radiofrequency electromagnetic fields leads to promising therapeutic responses at cellular and tissue levels in humans, supporting this newly emerging cancer treatment modality with early favorable clinical experience specifically in advanced cancer.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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".