Effects of a 902 MHz mobile phone on cerebral blood flow in humans: a PET study.

Neuroreport · 2003 · Mixed · Low evidence

← Research stream
MixedLow evidencePaper 5255

In a double-blind PET study during a visual working memory task, exposure to an active 902 MHz mobile phone produced a relative decrease in rCBF bilaterally in the auditory cortex. No rCBF changes were observed in the area of maximum EMF, and the authors stat…

Study snapshot

PublicationNeuroreport · 2003
Study typerandomized_trial
Reported directionMixed
Evidence ratingLow

Abstract

Fourteen healthy right-handed subjects were scanned using PET with a [15O]water tracer during exposure to electromagnetic field (EMF) emitted by a mobile phone and a sham-exposure under double-blind conditions. During scanning, the subjects performed a visual working memory task. Exposure to an active mobile phone produced a relative decrease in regional cerebral blood flow (rCBF) bilaterally in the auditory cortex but no rCBF changes were observed in the area of maximum EMF. It is possible that these remote findings were caused by the EMF emitted by the active mobile phone. A more likely interpretation of the present findings were a result of an auditory signal from the active mobile phone. Therefore, it is not reasoned to attribute this finding to the EMF emitted by the phone. Further study on human rCBF during exposure to EMF of a mobile phone is needed.

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 directionmixed
PopulationFourteen healthy right-handed subjects
Sample size14
ExposureRF · 902 MHz
Evidence strengthLowConfidence: 74% · Peer reviewed: yes

Main findings

In a double-blind PET study during a visual working memory task, exposure to an active 902 MHz mobile phone produced a relative decrease in rCBF bilaterally in the auditory cortex. No rCBF changes were observed in the area of maximum EMF, and the authors state the findings are more likely due to an auditory signal from the active phone rather than EMF.

Outcomes measured

  • regional cerebral blood flow (rCBF)
  • rCBF in auditory cortex
  • rCBF in area of maximum EMF

Limitations

  • Small sample size (n=14)
  • Interpretation confounded by possible auditory signal from the active phone
  • No rCBF changes observed at the area of maximum EMF despite remote changes
View raw extracted JSON
{
  "study_type": "randomized_trial",
  "exposure": {
    "band": "RF",
    "source": "mobile phone",
    "frequency_mhz": 902,
    "sar_wkg": null,
    "duration": null
  },
  "population": "Fourteen healthy right-handed subjects",
  "sample_size": 14,
  "outcomes": [
    "regional cerebral blood flow (rCBF)",
    "rCBF in auditory cortex",
    "rCBF in area of maximum EMF"
  ],
  "main_findings": "In a double-blind PET study during a visual working memory task, exposure to an active 902 MHz mobile phone produced a relative decrease in rCBF bilaterally in the auditory cortex. No rCBF changes were observed in the area of maximum EMF, and the authors state the findings are more likely due to an auditory signal from the active phone rather than EMF.",
  "effect_direction": "mixed",
  "limitations": [
    "Small sample size (n=14)",
    "Interpretation confounded by possible auditory signal from the active phone",
    "No rCBF changes observed at the area of maximum EMF despite remote changes"
  ],
  "evidence_strength": "low",
  "confidence": 0.74,
  "peer_reviewed_likely": "yes",
  "keywords": [
    "902 MHz",
    "mobile phone",
    "RF EMF",
    "PET",
    "[15O]water",
    "regional cerebral blood flow",
    "auditory cortex",
    "double-blind",
    "sham exposure",
    "visual working memory"
  ],
  "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: 10.1097/00001756-200311140-00003
PubMed: 14600490

Read the original paper →

Related papers

← Back to the Research Library