The Critical Importance of Molecular Biomarkers and Imaging in the Study of Electrohypersensitivity. A Scientific Consensus International Report

2021 · Unclear · Insufficient evidence

← Research stream

UnclearInsufficient evidencePaper 1108

Study snapshot

Publicationmanual · 2021

Study typereview

Reported directionUnclear

Evidence ratingInsufficient

Abstract

The Critical Importance of Molecular Biomarkers and Imaging in the Study of Electrohypersensitivity. A Scientific Consensus International Report Belpomme, Dominique, George L. Carlo, Philippe Irigaray, David O. Carpenter, Lennart Hardell, Michael Kundi, Igor Belyaev, Magda Havas, Franz Adlkofer, Gunnar Heuser, Anthony B. Miller, Daniela Caccamo, Chiara De Luca, Lebrecht von Klitzing, Martin L. Pall, Priyanka Bandara, Yael Stein, Cindy Sage, Morando Soffritti, Devra Davis, Joel M. Moskowitz, S. M.J. Mortazavi, Martha R. Herbert, Hanns Moshammer, Gerard Ledoigt, Robert Turner, Anthony Tweedale, Pilar Muñoz-Calero, Iris Udasin, Tarmo Koppel, Ernesto Burgio, and André Vander Vorst. 2021. "The Critical Importance of Molecular Biomarkers and Imaging in the Study of Electrohypersensitivity. A Scientific Consensus International Report" International Journal of Molecular Sciences 22(14):7321. doi:10.3390/ijms22147321. Abstract Clinical research aiming at objectively identifying and characterizing diseases via clinical observations and biological and radiological findings is a critical initial research step when establishing objective diagnostic criteria and treatments. Failure to first define such diagnostic criteria may lead research on pathogenesis and etiology to serious confounding biases and erroneous medical interpretations. This is particularly the case for electrohypersensitivity (EHS) and more particularly for the so-called “provocation tests”, which do not investigate the causal origin of EHS but rather the EHS-associated particular environmental intolerance state with hypersensitivity to man-made electromagnetic fields (EMF). However, because those tests depend on multiple EMF-associated physical and biological parameters and have been conducted in patients without having first defined EHS objectively and/or endpoints adequately, they cannot presently be considered to be valid pathogenesis research methodologies. Consequently, the negative results obtained by these tests do not preclude a role of EMF exposure as a symptomatic trigger in EHS patients. Moreover, there is no proof that EHS symptoms or EHS itself are caused by psychosomatic or nocebo effects. This international consensus report pleads for the acknowledgement of EHS as a distinct neuropathological disorder and for its inclusion in the WHO International Classification of Diseases. Open access paper: mdpi.com

Machine Enhanced Logic

AI evidence extraction

Structured fields below were generated from the paper’s abstract and metadata to make the evidence easier to inspect. Automated extraction may be incomplete or incorrect; verify important details against the original paper.

Study typereview

Effect directionunclear

PopulationPatients with electrohypersensitivity (EHS) (discussed)

Sample sizeNot supplied

ExposureNot supplied

Evidence strengthInsufficientConfidence: 74% · Peer reviewed: yes

Main findings

The report argues that EMF provocation tests have methodological limitations (e.g., multiple EMF-associated parameters and inadequate objective definition/endpoints for EHS) and that negative provocation-test results do not preclude EMF exposure as a symptomatic trigger in EHS patients. It states there is no proof that EHS symptoms or EHS itself are caused by psychosomatic or nocebo effects, and calls for recognition of EHS as a distinct neuropathological disorder and inclusion in the WHO ICD.

Outcomes measured

Electrohypersensitivity (EHS) diagnostic characterization
Molecular biomarkers (proposed/advocated)
Imaging/radiological findings (proposed/advocated)
Interpretation/validity of EMF provocation tests
Role of EMF exposure as symptomatic trigger in EHS
Psychosomatic/nocebo explanations (discussed)
Policy/classification: inclusion of EHS in WHO International Classification of Diseases

Limitations

No specific study design details, participant selection, or sample size are provided in the abstract
No specific biomarker/imaging endpoints or quantitative results are reported in the abstract
Exposure characteristics (frequency, intensity/SAR, duration, source types) are not specified

View raw extracted JSON

{
  "study_type": "review",
  "exposure": {
    "band": null,
    "source": "man-made electromagnetic fields (EMF)",
    "frequency_mhz": null,
    "sar_wkg": null,
    "duration": null
  },
  "population": "Patients with electrohypersensitivity (EHS) (discussed)",
  "sample_size": null,
  "outcomes": [
    "Electrohypersensitivity (EHS) diagnostic characterization",
    "Molecular biomarkers (proposed/advocated)",
    "Imaging/radiological findings (proposed/advocated)",
    "Interpretation/validity of EMF provocation tests",
    "Role of EMF exposure as symptomatic trigger in EHS",
    "Psychosomatic/nocebo explanations (discussed)",
    "Policy/classification: inclusion of EHS in WHO International Classification of Diseases"
  ],
  "main_findings": "The report argues that EMF provocation tests have methodological limitations (e.g., multiple EMF-associated parameters and inadequate objective definition/endpoints for EHS) and that negative provocation-test results do not preclude EMF exposure as a symptomatic trigger in EHS patients. It states there is no proof that EHS symptoms or EHS itself are caused by psychosomatic or nocebo effects, and calls for recognition of EHS as a distinct neuropathological disorder and inclusion in the WHO ICD.",
  "effect_direction": "unclear",
  "limitations": [
    "No specific study design details, participant selection, or sample size are provided in the abstract",
    "No specific biomarker/imaging endpoints or quantitative results are reported in the abstract",
    "Exposure characteristics (frequency, intensity/SAR, duration, source types) are not specified"
  ],
  "evidence_strength": "insufficient",
  "confidence": 0.74,
  "peer_reviewed_likely": "yes",
  "keywords": [
    "electrohypersensitivity",
    "EHS",
    "biomarkers",
    "imaging",
    "provocation tests",
    "environmental intolerance",
    "man-made electromagnetic fields",
    "nocebo",
    "psychosomatic",
    "WHO International Classification of Diseases",
    "consensus report"
  ],
  "suggested_hubs": [
    {
      "slug": "who-icnirp",
      "weight": 0.6,
      "reason": "Calls for inclusion of EHS in the WHO International Classification of Diseases (WHO ICD)."
    }
  ]
}

AI can be wrong. Always verify against the paper.

AI-extracted fields are generated from the abstract and metadata and may be incomplete or incorrect. This material is for informational purposes and is not medical advice.

Identifiers and source

DOI: 10.3390/ijms22147321
PubMed: Not supplied

Read the original paper →

Related papers

← Back to the Research Library