Effects of short and long term EMF exposure on the human hippocampus

2017 · Mixed · Low evidence

← Research stream
MixedLow evidencePaper 2376

No significant differences were found between low- and high-exposure groups for hippocampal volume or for the measured spectroscopy metabolites (p>0.05). The high-exposure group performed significantly worse on attention-related neurocognitive tests (Stroop a…

Study snapshot

Publicationmanual · 2017
Study typecohort
Reported directionMixed
Evidence ratingLow

Abstract

Effects of short and long term EMF exposure on the human hippocampus Omur Gulsum Deniz, Suleyman Kaplan, Mustafa Bekir Selçuk, Murat Terzi, Gamze Altun, Kıymet Kübra Yurt, Kerim Aslan, Devra Davis. Effects of short and long term electromagnetic fields exposure on the human hippocampus. Journal of Microscopy and Ultrastructure, In Press, Corrected Proof, Available online 13 July 2017. Highlights • This pilot investigation of female medical students finds that electromagnetic fields exposure does not alter the volume of the human hippocampus. • Widespread use of mobile phones among medical students results in a low level of concentration in the present study. • Prolonged use of mobile phones can lead to a decline in the ability to suppress stimuli. Abstract The increasing use of mobile phones may have a number of physiological and psychological effects on human health. Many animal and human studies have reported various effects on the central nervous system and cognitive performance from of exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMF) emitted by mobile phones. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the effects of mobile phones on the morphology of the human brain and on cognitive performance using stereological and spectroscopic methods and neurocognitive tests. Sixty healthy female medical school students aged 18-25 years were divided into a low exposure group (30 subjects, <30 min daily use by the head) and high exposure group (30 subjects, >90 min daily use by the head). Magnetic resonance images (MRI) of the brain analysed on OsiriX 3.2.1 workstation. Neuropsychological tests were performed for each subject. In addition, three dominant specific metabolites were analysed, choline at 3.21 ppm, creatine at 3.04 ppm and N-acetyl aspartate at 2.02 ppm. Analysis of the spectroscopic results revealed no significant difference in specific metabolites between the groups (p > 0.05). There was also no significant difference in terms of hippocampal volume between the groups (p > 0.05). In contrast, the results of the stroop and digit span (backward) neurocognitive tests of high exposure group for evaluating attention were significantly poorer from low exposure group (p < 0.05). Based on these results, we conclude that a lack of attention and concentration may occur in subjects who talk on mobile phones for longer times, compared to those who use phones relatively less. sciencedirect.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 typecohort
Effect directionmixed
PopulationHealthy female medical school students aged 18–25 years
Sample size60
ExposureRF · Self-reported daily mobile phone use by the head: low (<30 min/day) vs high (>90 min/day)
Evidence strengthLowConfidence: 74% · Peer reviewed: yes

Main findings

No significant differences were found between low- and high-exposure groups for hippocampal volume or for the measured spectroscopy metabolites (p>0.05). The high-exposure group performed significantly worse on attention-related neurocognitive tests (Stroop and digit span backward) compared with the low-exposure group (p<0.05).

Outcomes measured

  • Hippocampal volume (MRI stereological analysis)
  • Brain metabolites by spectroscopy (choline 3.21 ppm, creatine 3.04 ppm, N-acetyl aspartate 2.02 ppm)
  • Neurocognitive performance (Stroop test; digit span backward)

Limitations

  • Pilot investigation
  • Exposure defined by self-reported mobile phone use duration; no objective RF exposure metrics (e.g., frequency, SAR) reported
  • Only healthy female medical students aged 18–25 years; limited generalizability
  • Group comparison design; potential confounding not described in the abstract
View raw extracted JSON
{
  "study_type": "cohort",
  "exposure": {
    "band": "RF",
    "source": "mobile phone",
    "frequency_mhz": null,
    "sar_wkg": null,
    "duration": "Self-reported daily mobile phone use by the head: low (<30 min/day) vs high (>90 min/day)"
  },
  "population": "Healthy female medical school students aged 18–25 years",
  "sample_size": 60,
  "outcomes": [
    "Hippocampal volume (MRI stereological analysis)",
    "Brain metabolites by spectroscopy (choline 3.21 ppm, creatine 3.04 ppm, N-acetyl aspartate 2.02 ppm)",
    "Neurocognitive performance (Stroop test; digit span backward)"
  ],
  "main_findings": "No significant differences were found between low- and high-exposure groups for hippocampal volume or for the measured spectroscopy metabolites (p>0.05). The high-exposure group performed significantly worse on attention-related neurocognitive tests (Stroop and digit span backward) compared with the low-exposure group (p<0.05).",
  "effect_direction": "mixed",
  "limitations": [
    "Pilot investigation",
    "Exposure defined by self-reported mobile phone use duration; no objective RF exposure metrics (e.g., frequency, SAR) reported",
    "Only healthy female medical students aged 18–25 years; limited generalizability",
    "Group comparison design; potential confounding not described in the abstract"
  ],
  "evidence_strength": "low",
  "confidence": 0.74,
  "peer_reviewed_likely": "yes",
  "keywords": [
    "electromagnetic fields",
    "EMF",
    "mobile phone",
    "hippocampus",
    "MRI",
    "spectroscopy",
    "choline",
    "creatine",
    "N-acetyl aspartate",
    "cognitive performance",
    "attention",
    "Stroop",
    "digit span"
  ],
  "suggested_hubs": []
}
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: Not supplied
PubMed: Not supplied

Read the original paper →

Related papers

← Back to the Research Library