Geomagnetic storm under laboratory conditions: randomized experiment

2017 · Unclear · Insufficient evidence

← Research stream

UnclearInsufficient evidencePaper 2338

Study snapshot

Publicationmanual · 2017

Study typerandomized_trial

Reported directionUnclear

Evidence ratingInsufficient

Abstract

Geomagnetic storm under laboratory conditions: randomized experiment Gurfinkel YI, Vasin AL, Pishchalnikov RY, Sarimov RM, Sasonko ML, Matveeva TA. Geomagnetic storm under laboratory conditions: randomized experiment. Int J Biometeorol. 2017 Oct 13. doi: 10.1007/s00484-017-1460- 8. Abstract The influence of the previously recorded geomagnetic storm (GS) on human cardiovascular system and microcirculation has been studied under laboratory conditions. Healthy volunteers in lying position were exposed under two artificially created conditions: quiet (Q) and storm (S). The Q regime playbacks a noise-free magnetic field (MF) which is closed to the natural geomagnetic conditions on Moscow's latitude. The S regime playbacks the initially recorded 6-h geomagnetic storm which is repeated four times sequentially. The cardiovascular response to the GS impact was assessed by measuring capillary blood velocity (CBV) and blood pressure (BP) and by the analysis of the 24-h ECG recording. A storm-to-quiet ratio for the cardio intervals (CI) and the heart rate variability (HRV) was introduced in order to reveal the average over group significant differences of HRV. An individual sensitivity to the GS was estimated using the autocorrelation function analysis of the high-frequency (HF) part of the CI spectrum. The autocorrelation analysis allowed for detection a group of subjects of study which autocorrelation functions (ACF) react differently in the Q and S regimes of exposure. ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

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 typerandomized_trial

Effect directionunclear

PopulationHealthy volunteers

Sample sizeNot supplied

ExposureELF · 6-h geomagnetic storm playback repeated four times sequentially

Evidence strengthInsufficientConfidence: 66% · Peer reviewed: yes

Main findings

In a randomized laboratory experiment, healthy volunteers were exposed to quiet versus storm magnetic-field playback conditions, and cardiovascular/microcirculation responses were assessed using CBV, BP, and 24-h ECG-derived measures (CI/HRV). Autocorrelation analysis of the HF part of the CI spectrum was used to identify a subgroup whose ACF reacted differently between quiet and storm exposure regimes.

Outcomes measured

capillary blood velocity (CBV)
blood pressure (BP)
24-h ECG
cardio intervals (CI)
heart rate variability (HRV)
high-frequency (HF) part of CI spectrum autocorrelation function (ACF)

Limitations

Sample size not reported in the abstract
No quantitative results or effect sizes reported in the abstract
Exposure metrics (field strength, detailed frequency content) not reported in the abstract

View raw extracted JSON

{
  "study_type": "randomized_trial",
  "exposure": {
    "band": "ELF",
    "source": "geomagnetic storm simulation (artificially created magnetic field playback)",
    "frequency_mhz": null,
    "sar_wkg": null,
    "duration": "6-h geomagnetic storm playback repeated four times sequentially"
  },
  "population": "Healthy volunteers",
  "sample_size": null,
  "outcomes": [
    "capillary blood velocity (CBV)",
    "blood pressure (BP)",
    "24-h ECG",
    "cardio intervals (CI)",
    "heart rate variability (HRV)",
    "high-frequency (HF) part of CI spectrum autocorrelation function (ACF)"
  ],
  "main_findings": "In a randomized laboratory experiment, healthy volunteers were exposed to quiet versus storm magnetic-field playback conditions, and cardiovascular/microcirculation responses were assessed using CBV, BP, and 24-h ECG-derived measures (CI/HRV). Autocorrelation analysis of the HF part of the CI spectrum was used to identify a subgroup whose ACF reacted differently between quiet and storm exposure regimes.",
  "effect_direction": "unclear",
  "limitations": [
    "Sample size not reported in the abstract",
    "No quantitative results or effect sizes reported in the abstract",
    "Exposure metrics (field strength, detailed frequency content) not reported in the abstract"
  ],
  "evidence_strength": "insufficient",
  "confidence": 0.66,
  "peer_reviewed_likely": "yes",
  "keywords": [
    "geomagnetic storm",
    "magnetic field",
    "laboratory exposure",
    "randomized experiment",
    "cardiovascular",
    "microcirculation",
    "capillary blood velocity",
    "blood pressure",
    "ECG",
    "heart rate variability",
    "autocorrelation"
  ],
  "suggested_hubs": [
    {
      "slug": "who-icnirp",
      "weight": 0.2,
      "reason": "Study concerns magnetic-field exposure and physiological outcomes, potentially relevant to EMF health guidance context."
    }
  ]
}

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: 10.1007/s00484-017-1460
PubMed: Not supplied

Read the original paper →

Related papers

← Back to the Research Library