Some recommendations for experimental work in magnetobiology, revisited

Makinistian, Leonardo; Muehsam, David; Bersani, Ferdinando; Belyaev, Igor

doi:10.1002/bem.22144

Cited by 14 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 83 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As has been repeatedly noted in the literature, nonspecific effects in magnetobiology depend on many factors [Valberg, 1995; Krylov et al, 2013; Buchachenko, 2016; Makinistian et al, 2018; Portelli, 2019], not all of which are always controllable. There are more than ten physical factors alone: nonuniformity of MFs applied; the background MF fluctuations and their spectral properties; electric fields; the relative orientation of the AC and DC MFs; the value and orientation of electric fields relative to MFs; the orientation of the MF relative to the gravity vector; humidity and atmospheric pressure and the rates of their change in time; temperature gradients and air flows, etc.…”

Section: Randomness Of Nonspecific Effectsmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…For example, the range of MF fluctuations in offices and laboratories can reach up to a few hundred nT and even a few µT near underground routes and tram and bus lines [e.g., Sarimov and Binhi, 2020]. MF heterogeneity in biological thermostats can reach tens of µT—a fact that is often not taken into account in magnetobiology studies [Makinistian et al, 2018], although it is known [e.g., Johnsen and Lohmann, 2005; Prato et al, 2013] that some animals can detect 15–30 nT changes in the local geoMF. The same relationship between the amplitude of variations and biological sensitivity might have been expected for other controllable factors, such as temperature.…”

Section: Randomness Of Nonspecific Effectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Random Effects in Magnetobiology and a Way to Summarize Them

Binhi

2021

Bioelectromagnetics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In magnetobiology, it is difficult to reproduce the nonspecific (not associated with specialized receptors) biological effects of weak magnetic fields. This means that some important characteristic of the data may be missed in standard statistical processing, where the set of measurements to be averaged belongs to the same population so that the contribution of fluctuations decreases according to the Central Limit Theorem. It has been shown that a series of measurements of a nonspecific magnetic effect contains not only the usual scatter of data around the mean but also a significant random component in the mean itself. This random component indicates that measurements belong to different statistical populations, which requires special processing. This component, otherwise called heterogeneity, is an additional characteristic that is typically overlooked, and which reduces reproducibility. The current method for studying and summarizing highly heterogeneous data is the random‐effect meta‐analysis of absolute values, i.e., of magnitudes, rather than the values themselves. However, this estimator—the average of absolute values—has a significant positive bias when it comes to the small effects that are characteristic of magnetobiology. To solve this problem, an improved estimator based on the folded normal distribution that gives several times less bias is proposed. We used this improved estimator to analyze the nonspecific effect of the hypomagnetic field in the Stroop test in 40 subjects and found a statistically significant meta‐effect with a standardized average of magnitudes of about 0.1. It has been shown that the proposed approach can also be applied to a single study. © 2021 Bioelectromagnetics Society.

show abstract

Section: Randomness Of Nonspecific Effectsmentioning

confidence: 97%

Section: Randomness Of Nonspecific Effectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Random Effects in Magnetobiology and a Way to Summarize Them

Binhi

2021

Bioelectromagnetics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In planning any new experimental studies, we encourage researchers to use a well-controlled and validated exposure setting. For experiments involving exposures to weak SMF, precise measurements of the magnetic flux density should be obtained for the exposure group and also for the control/sham exposure group to control the level of background fields [52]. Detailed guidance on proper dosimetry in EMF research has been provided by Makinistian 2018 [52], Misakian 1993 [53], and Valberg 1995 [54].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For experiments involving exposures to weak SMF, precise measurements of the magnetic flux density should be obtained for the exposure group and also for the control/sham exposure group to control the level of background fields [52]. Detailed guidance on proper dosimetry in EMF research has been provided by Makinistian 2018 [52], Misakian 1993 [53], and Valberg 1995 [54]. In order to facilitate the comparison of exposures among studies and the synthesis of the results, we further encourage researchers to consider the reporting standards defined, e.g., in the ARRIVE guidelines for experimental animal studies [55], in the publication checklist by Hooijmans 2010 [56], or in the CONSORT statement for human clinical studies [57].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Biological and health-related effects of weak static magnetic fields (≤ 1 mT) in humans and vertebrates: A systematic review

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background There is a rapid development in technologies that generate weak static magnetic fields (SMF) including high-voltage direct current (HVDC) lines, systems operating with batteries, such as electric cars, and devices using permanent magnets. However, few reviews on the effects of such fields on biological systems have been prepared and none of these evaluations have had a particular focus on weak SMF (� 1 mT). The aim of this review was to systematically analyze and evaluate possible effects of weak SMF (� 1 mT) on biological functioning and to provide an update on the current state of research. Methods This review was prepared in accordance with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) statement. Methodological limitations in individual studies were assessed using the Office of Health Assessment and Translation (OHAT) Risk-of-Bias Rating Tool. Results Eleven studies fulfilled the eligibility criteria and were included in this review. All included studies were experimental animal studies as no human studies were among the eligible articles. Eight of the eleven studies reported responses of rat, rabbits and quails to weak SMF exposure that were expressed as altered melatonin biosynthesis, reduced locomotor activity, altered vasomotion and blood pressure, transient changes in blood pressure-related biochemical parameters, or in the level of neurotransmitters and increases in enzyme activities. It remained largely unclear from the interpretation of the results whether the reported effects in the evaluated studies were beneficial or detrimental for health. Conclusion The available evidence from the literature reviewed is not sufficient to draw a conclusion for biological and health-related effects of exposure to weak SMF. There was a lack of

show abstract

“…More research studies are required to assess the unstudied effects of emerging AREMR technologies on pollinators and another biodiversity (Bandara and Carpenter, 2018;Bin Zikria et al, 2018;Russell, 2018). Good quality scientific investigations must improve to obtain an accurate level of the level of risk (Makinistian, et al, 2018). As reported by other researchers (Gonzalez-Varo, et al, 2013;Vanbergen, 2013;Godfray, et al, 2014), assessments of chronic exposure and synergistic effects arising from exposure to sources of ALAN/AREMR and other stressors such as pesticides, pathogens, nutritional deficits need testing to evaluate the overall level of risk from anthropogenic EMR.…”

Section: Effects Of Anthropogenic Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Radiation (Aremr)mentioning

confidence: 99%

An overview of anthropogenic electromagnetic radiations as risk to pollinators and pollination

Kumar¹,

Singh

Nath

et al. 2020

JANS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Pollinators play a key functional role in most terrestrial ecosystems and provide important ecosystem service to maintain wild plant communities and agricultural productivity. The decline in pollinators has been related to anthropogenic disturbances such as habitat loss, alterations in land use, and climate change. The surge in mobile telephony has led to a marked increase in electromagnetic fields in the atmosphere, which may affect pollinator and pollination. Several laboratory studies have reported negative effects of electromagnetic radiation on reproduction, development, and navigation in insects. The abundance of insects such as the beetle, wasp, and hoverfly, decreased with electromagnetic radiation(EMR), whereas the abundance of underground-nesting wild bees and bee fly unexpectedly increased with EMR. Potential risks for pollinators and biodiversity are anthropogenic radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation (AREMR) (light, radiofrequency). Artificial light at night (ALAN) can alter the function and abundance of pollinator. Evidence of impacts of AREMR is not adequate due to a lack of high quality, field-realistic studies. Whether pollinators experiencing a threat of ALAN or AREMR, while major knowledge gap exists. In this review, the effects of EMR on wild pollinator groups such as wild bees, hoverflies, bee flies, beetles, butterflies, and wasps etc. have been highlighted. Researchers are also recommended for further study on the effects of EMR on insects. This study will be significant to conserve pollinators and other important insects.

show abstract

Some recommendations for experimental work in magnetobiology, revisited

Cited by 14 publications

References 83 publications

Random Effects in Magnetobiology and a Way to Summarize Them

Random Effects in Magnetobiology and a Way to Summarize Them

Biological and health-related effects of weak static magnetic fields (≤ 1 mT) in humans and vertebrates: A systematic review

An overview of anthropogenic electromagnetic radiations as risk to pollinators and pollination

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About