Paper check · Magnetic fields and the body
A Research Square preprint put the six-person crew of a 366-day Moon-mission simulation into a coil system that cut the local magnetic field 350-fold, to 143 nT, for four hours before the isolation and four hours near its end, and recorded heart rate, blood pressure, heart-rate variability and skin blood flow on the forehead [1 pp. 3–5]. S0 News labelled its link to the paper “Hypomagnetic ROS” in the episode’s description and said the trio of papers it belonged to “all hit the wild surge in reactive oxygen species” [2 2:19]. The preprint measured no reactive oxygen species: its one sentence on oxidative stress is a suggestion drawn from other work [1 pp. 2, 7]. We checked what it measured, what its authors suggest and what the episode made of it, keeping the three apart.
Our analysis marks our own reasoning and calculations, and the verdicts are our assessment. Everything else comes from the numbered sources; for the preprint [1], p. gives the page number printed in its footer, Fig. one of its five figures or a panel, and Table 1 its only table.
6
volunteers, 2 men and 4 women, each compared with their own background recording. There was no sham session [1 pp. 3–4].
2 × 4 h
hypomagnetic exposures per person: one 2–4 days before a 366-day isolation and one on its days 346–350 [1 p. 4][1 Fig. 2].
3
asterisks in Table 1: the paper’s only marks of statistical significance, on heart rate twice and systolic pressure once [1 Table 1].
The claims
S0 News, October 20, 2026 [2 2:19]
The preprint measured no reactive oxygen species and took no blood: its instruments were an ECG, a pressure cuff and a laser Doppler probe on the forehead [1 pp. 4–5]. Its one sentence on the subject is a suggestion drawn from other papers: “The obtained data suggest a potential increase in oxidative stress” [1 p. 2]. See section 3.
S0 News, October 20, 2026 [2 2:41]
The study is about the control of blood flow, not what blood is made of. It recorded heart rate, blood pressure, heart-rate variability and oscillations in skin blood flow; no blood sample was taken, and nothing in it speaks to immune cells, antioxidants or blood chemistry [1 pp. 4–6]. See section 1.
S0 News, October 20, 2026 [2 2:45]
Each volunteer had two four-hour exposures, one before the 366-day isolation and one on its last days; no dose or duration was varied [1 p. 4][1 Fig. 2]. The year between the sessions was spent at the ordinary field, so a larger change in the second session cannot be told apart from a year of confinement [1 p. 4]. See section 4.
S0 News, October 20, 2026 [2 2:13]
The unit held 143 ± 32 nT, about 350 times below the local field [1 p. 4]. Earth’s surface field today is roughly 160–470 times stronger than that [3 Table 1], and even the Laschamp excursion’s low, about 2–5% of today’s dipole, would leave a field some 7–17 times stronger than the unit’s (our analysis) [4 §4.2][5 §3]. The paper never mentions Earth’s field changing. See section 5.
The preprint’s abstract [1 p. 2]
Heart rate rose significantly in both sessions and systolic pressure in one; those three asterisks are the paper’s only reported significance tests [1 Table 1]. The heart-rate-variability and skin-blood-flow changes are reported as directions with no test [1 Figs. 3–4], in six people, with no sham session and no blinding [1 pp. 4–5]. The paper’s own conclusion retreats to “it can be assumed … probably” [1 p. 8]. See section 2.
1 · The experiment
The volunteers were the crew of SIRIUS-23, the fourth isolation experiment of the SIRIUS programme at the Institute of Biomedical Problems in Moscow: 366 days sealed in a ground-based complex that simulated a Moon mission [1 p. 3]. The magnetic field was lowered only inside the “Arfa” exposure unit, for four hours at a time [1 p. 4].
Six healthy volunteers, 2 men and 4 women, aged 25 to 37 [1 p. 3]. The isolation simulated a flight to a lunar orbital station (days 1–4), a stay there (days 5–361), five surface landings by four of the crew and a return to Earth (days 362–366) [1 p. 3][1 Fig. 2]. The complex reproduces the main factors of spaceflight “with the exception of weightlessness and radiation exposure” [1 p. 3]; everywhere in it except the exposure unit, the magnetic field was left as it was [1 p. 4].
A companion paper by the same group, now peer reviewed, reports how these six responded to the isolation itself [6].
Coaxial current-carrying coils (Helmholtz rings) drive a field opposed to Earth’s, cancelling it inside a movable box [1 p. 4]; the system was described in an earlier paper on 8-hour exposures [7]. The field inside was 143 ± 32 nT, monitored with a three-component magnetic sensor, and the paper gives the reduction as 350-fold [1 p. 4].
An earlier study by the group on six men, which its authors call a pilot, tested 350-, 650- and 1000-fold reductions over 32 hours of ECG and found the response “quite pronounced” already at 350-fold in one of the two groups of volunteers it identified [8].
Days of isolation
The paper describes its baseline two ways: as background studies made “before placing the examinees in the installation” and as the 10 minutes before the unit was switched on [1 pp. 4–5]. Which recording the “Before” and “Isolation” columns of its Table 1 report is not stated unambiguously.
An ECG with heart-rate-variability analysis (Varicard 2.8, standard lead II), giving MxDMn, the spread between the longest and shortest beat intervals; pNN50, the share of successive beat intervals that differ by more than 50 ms; and the high- and low-frequency spectral powers HF and LF, which the authors read as parasympathetic and sympathetic activity. Blood pressure was taken with an automatic cuff [1 pp. 4–5].
Laser Doppler flowmetry (LAZMA-PF) at one site, the glabella between the eyebrows. The software splits the flow signal into oscillations attributed to the endothelium, to sympathetic nerves, to breathing (venular) and to the pulse, and reports each band’s amplitude; its spectral-power shares cover the endothelial and neurogenic bands and a fifth, myogenic band (PM), for which no amplitude is reported [1 p. 5][1 Fig. 4]. “Microscale” means these skin microvessels, not cells or anything inside them.
No blood sample was taken. Nothing was measured on reactive oxygen species or any marker of oxidative stress, on the brain, cognition or behaviour, on mitochondria, or on any lymphatic or waste-clearing system [1 pp. 4–5]. “Brain”, “cognition”, “locus coeruleus” and anything lymphatic do not appear in the paper at all; “mitochondrial” and “hippocampal neurogenesis” appear only inside the titles of other people’s papers in its reference list, and the mitochondrial one is about mouse muscle [1 pp. 10–11]. “Reactive oxygen species” and “oxidative stress” appear only in the authors’ suggestion, in the abstract, the Discussion, the conclusion and the scheme of Figure 5, and in one cited title [1 pp. 2, 7–8][1 Fig. 5][1 p. 12].
2 · What the numbers show
Because the data failed a normality check, the paper used paired Wilcoxon tests at p < 0.05 [1 p. 5]. It reports no p-value anywhere; its only marks of significance are three asterisks in Table 1 [1 Table 1]. Figures 3 and 4 carry none.
Heart rate, session 1
56.8 → 71.3
beats per minute, medians before the isolation and in the last 10 minutes of four hours in the unit; marked significant [1 Table 1]
Heart rate, session 2
52.1 → 69.1
beats per minute, medians at the end of the isolation and in the last 10 minutes of four hours in the unit; marked significant [1 Table 1]
Systolic pressure, session 2
94 → 118
mmHg, marked significant. The session-1 rise (101 → 109) and both diastolic rises (64 → 69 and 59 → 77) are not marked [1 Table 1]
| Measure | Before | HMC 1 | Isolation | HMC 2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Heart rate (bpm) | 56.83 (51.60; 62.92) | 71.25 (66.66; 74.70)* | 52.11 (50.38; 61.17) | 69.12 (68.69; 69.80)* |
| Systolic pressure (mmHg) | 101 (96; 107) | 109 (107; 111) | 94 (86; 100) | 118 (116; 123)* |
| Diastolic pressure (mmHg) | 64 (56; 73) | 69 (67; 72) | 59 (55; 62) | 77 (68; 84) |
Medians with lower and upper quartiles; the original prints decimal commas. “Before” and “Isolation” are the background recordings, HMC 1 and HMC 2 the two exposures. The asterisk is the paper’s: “significant difference from background studies, p<0.05” [1 Table 1]. The results text calls this “a slight increase in HR and blood pressure” [1 p. 6].
A paired Wilcoxon signed-rank test on six people can reach p < 0.05 only when every one of the six changes in the same direction: the exact two-sided p-value is then 0.031, and the next value the test can produce, with one person going the other way, is 0.063. So each asterisk in Table 1 means that all six volunteers moved together, and no result in this design could have come out significant otherwise. A rise of 14 and 17 beats per minute in median heart rate is a large change for four hours spent in the unit. The paper mentions no correction for the eleven or more indices it examined [1 p. 5].
MxDMn and pNN50 fell in both exposures and the low-frequency power LF rose, which the authors read as less parasympathetic and more sympathetic drive [1 p. 5][1 Fig. 3]. On the forehead, the endothelial and neurogenic amplitudes rose while the venular and pulse amplitudes fell [1 p. 6][1 Fig. 4]. Each is shown as a median with an interquartile range and, for the amplitude panels, the six individual points, and none carries a test [1 Figs. 3–4].
The spectral-power shares in Figure 4F are plotted as percentages, yet they sum to roughly 44%, 86%, 7% and 76% across the four conditions; the near-zero “Isolation” background is the comparator for the HMC 2 bars, and the paper does not say what the shares are of [1 Fig. 4F].
The Discussion argues from “an increase in the amplitude of venular oscillations” [1 p. 7], while the abstract, the results and Figure 4C all report a decrease [1 p. 2][1 Fig. 4C].
| Index | Before | HMC 1 | Isolation | HMC 2 | Test reported |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MxDMn (ms) | ≈450 | ≈430 | ≈590 | ≈325 | None |
| pNN50 (%) | ≈31 | ≈21 | ≈41 | ≈9 | None |
| HF (ms²) | ≈800 | ≈680 | ≈890 | ≈630 | None |
| LF (ms²) | ≈750 | ≈1,800 | ≈570 | ≈1,240 | None |
| AE, endothelial (PU) | ≈0.16 | ≈0.57 | ≈0.18 | ≈0.40 | None |
| AN, neurogenic (PU) | ≈0.28 | ≈0.68 | ≈0.24 | ≈0.44 | None |
| AR, venular (PU) | ≈0.26 | ≈0.13 | ≈0.20 | ≈0.15 | None |
| AC, pulse (PU) | ≈0.87 | ≈0.40 | ≈0.98 | ≈0.30 | None |
| PE / PN / PM (%) | ≈2 / 5 / 37 | ≈26 / 33 / 27 | ≈2 / 3 / 2 | ≈32 / 29 / 15 | None |
Our readings of the plotted medians in Figures 3A–C and 4A–D and 4F, approximate; the paper gives no numbers for them, and no data are public [1 Figs. 3–4][1 p. 9]. PU is the instrument’s perfusion unit; PM is the myogenic band’s share of spectral power, a band for which no amplitude is reported [1 Fig. 4].
Their Figure 5 is a drawn scheme, not data: a parasympathetic column with falling venular oscillations, pNN50, MxDMn and HF power, a sympathetic column with predominant neurogenic oscillations, rising LF power and “oxidative stress → ↑ROS → ↑endothelial oscillations”, and underneath, rising heart rate and blood pressure with falling pulse fluctuations [1 Fig. 5]. The text proposes that a stronger pulse wave raises vascular tone, cutting the pulse amplitude in the skin and the flow of arterial blood to the capillaries, “which is likely due to the activation of the sympathoadrenal system” [1 pp. 7–8]. Two items on the scheme go beyond the results: diastolic pressure never reached significance, and HF power was not tested [1 Table 1][1 Fig. 3C].
3 · The reactive-oxygen question
The preprint’s one paragraph on reactive oxygen species (ROS) cites other people’s work and reasons from it [1 p. 7]. Here is the chain, link by link, from what was measured to what the episode called a “wild surge”.
The amplitude of endothelial oscillations in forehead skin blood flow was higher during both exposures, as read from a figure with no test [1 Fig. 4A].
“It is logical that the likely increase in ROS contributed to the activation of endothelial cells,” they write, which “influenced the production of NO” and raised the endothelial amplitude [1 p. 7]. No ROS, nitric oxide or endothelial marker was measured [1 pp. 4–5].
A 2022 Russian-language review, which they say showed that red blood cells in a weakened field “produced more reactive oxygen species” [1 p. 7][9], and a 2020 review proposing ROS as signalling molecules in hypomagnetic fields [10]. The 2022 review could not be obtained: its publisher’s site did not respond.
Three of the review’s authors ran the primary experiments we could trace: rat erythrocytes in vitro, dosed with tert-butyl hydroperoxide, with effects that depended on the dose and the incubation time [11][12]. Linking the review to those experiments is our inference.
HMC is the paper’s abbreviation for hypomagnetic conditions, GMF for the geomagnetic field and CVS for the cardiovascular system.
“The obtained data suggest a potential increase in oxidative stress under reduced geomagnetic field conditions, which may pose health risks during long-duration spaceflights.”
“HMC can enhance the effects of oxidative stress. This is evidenced by the results of a study (Shchegolev et al. 2022), which showed that red blood cells exposed to a weakened magnetic field produced more reactive oxygen species than red blood cells exposed to a normal magnetic field.”
“Thus, it can be assumed that in the conditions of HMC, there is probably a modification of the mechanisms of regulation of the CVS … In addition, it is worth noting that HMC can enhance the effects of oxidative stress, which also represents a potential risk in the case of a significant decrease in GMF.”
The best-known mouse study of near-zero fields found that new neuron growth in the hippocampus was impaired together with a reduction in reactive oxygen species in neural stem cells, and that raising ROS restored it [13][14]; a follow-up by the same group examined the cells around them [14]. A “wild surge” is not what that work reports, and this preprint reports no ROS at all. Its authors do hedge, with “suggest”, “potential”, “likely” and “can” [1 pp. 2, 7–8]; the episode dropped the hedges.
4 · What the episode said
S0 News presented the preprint with two other papers as “a triple on hypomagnetic fields” and described them together [2 2:13–3:02]. The presenter did say “Each looks at different subjects, different specific markers” [2 2:28]; the rest of the passage treats them as one finding. Here is each statement against this paper. The other two papers have their own pages.
| The episode says | What the preprint shows | Our verdict |
|---|---|---|
| “Up next we’ve got a triple on hypomagnetic fields. Low field strength like we’re entering as Earth’s magnetic field is tanking.” [2 2:13] | The unit held 143 ± 32 nT, 350 times below the local field [1 p. 4]. Earth’s surface field is 23–67 µT, roughly 160–470 times stronger [3 Table 1]; a Laschamp-sized excursion low would still be 7–17 times stronger than the unit (our analysis, section 5). The paper says nothing about Earth’s field changing [1 pp. 2–3]. | FalseToday’s field is 160–470 times stronger, and even a Laschamp-sized low would be seven times stronger. |
| “all hit the wild surge in reactive oxygen species” [2 2:19] | No reactive oxygen species were measured. The abstract offers “a potential increase in oxidative stress” as a suggestion, and the Discussion reasons to it from other papers [1 p. 2][1 p. 7]. | MisreadA real paper, with no such measurement in it. |
| “and brain impact, neurogenesis, hippocample activity, and the locus curerilius … all showed that when you take away the magnetic field, the brain stops working right. The mitochondria aren’t working right. The waste removal system isn’t working right.” [2 2:13–2:45] | None of these was measured here: no brain, cognition or behaviour, no mitochondria, no lymphatic or glymphatic measure [1 pp. 4–5]. “Brain”, “cognition” and “locus coeruleus” appear nowhere in the paper; “mitochondrial” and “hippocampal neurogenesis” appear only inside the titles of other people’s papers in its reference list [1 pp. 10–11]. (“Hippocample” and “locus curerilius” are the transcript’s renderings of hippocampal and locus coeruleus.) | Context“All” is wrong here too. But the episode tied this paper to reactive oxygen by its own link label, while the brain, mitochondrial and waste-clearance measures belong to the other two papers, so we rate those on their pages and in the episode review. |
| “Each looks at different subjects, different specific markers” [2 2:28] | This one studied six human volunteers with heart-rate variability, blood pressure and skin laser Doppler flowmetry [1 pp. 3–5]. | TrueDifferent subjects and different markers, as said. |
| “The chemical army in your blood isn’t working right.” [2 2:41] | No blood was sampled and no blood chemistry measured. The study is about the regulation of blood flow: heart rate, blood pressure, beat-to-beat variability and oscillations in skin perfusion [1 pp. 4–6]. | MisreadBlood flow control, not blood constituents. |
| “And these effects are compounding the longer the situation unfolds.” [2 2:45] | Two four-hour exposures per person, a year apart, with no duration or dose arm [1 p. 4][1 Fig. 2]. The review the paper itself cites found that across the literature, hypomagnetic effects show no statistical correlation with the type or duration of exposure [15]. | UnsupportedThe design cannot speak to duration, and the review it cites found no such trend. |
| “I’m sure it’s just a coincidence that America is losing protection from Earth’s magnetic field the fastest in this ongoing pole shift. And we appear to be losing our damn minds.” [2 2:47–3:02] | The paper says nothing about regions, pole shifts or Earth’s field changing; its frame is spaceflight [1 pp. 2–3]. The regional claim belongs to our review of the episode. | ContextNot a claim about this paper. |
We rated each statement as a statement about this preprint, on our standard scale, and the preprint’s own claims against its own data. Where a statement is about the other papers in the trio rather than this one, we mark it Context and say so.
| The preprint says | What its data show | Our verdict |
|---|---|---|
| “Under HMC, a decrease in parasympathetic activity (reduced pNN50 and MxDMn values), an increase in sympathetic activity, and elevated heart rate and blood pressure were observed.” [1 p. 2] | Heart rate: significant in both sessions. Systolic pressure: significant in session 2 only. Diastolic pressure: never marked. pNN50, MxDMn and LF: the direction described, with no test [1 Table 1][1 Fig. 3]. | Partly trueHeart rate holds; blood pressure in one session, systolic only; the rest is untested. |
| “At the level of skin microcirculation an increase in the amplitude of endothelial and neurogenic oscillations was noted, alongside a decrease in the amplitude of venular and pulse oscillations.” [1 p. 2] | Figure 4 shows those directions in both sessions, at one skin site, in six people, with no test and no correction [1 Fig. 4]. The Discussion then argues from an increase in venular amplitude [1 p. 7]. | UnconfirmedA consistent but untested preliminary pattern. |
| “The obtained data suggest a potential increase in oxidative stress under reduced geomagnetic field conditions, which may pose health risks during long-duration spaceflights.” [1 p. 2] | Nothing in the data bears on oxidative stress; the suggestion rests on the chain in section 3 [1 p. 7]. | UnsupportedFairly hedged, but no measurement stands behind it. |
Two more verdicts used here: Partly true means part of the claim holds up and part doesn’t, and Unconfirmed that it rests on a preliminary result that hasn’t been confirmed.
5 · How weak is 143 nT?
The unit’s 143 nT is about 0.3% of a typical surface field. The paper never compares it with Earth’s past or future; its frame is spaceflight, where the field falls away with distance from Earth and “the members of space crews will be in an evolutionally atypical HMC” [1 p. 3].
Logarithmic scale: each labeled step is ten times stronger than the one before
Inside the “Arfa” unit
143 nT
give or take 32 nT; the paper gives the reduction as 350-fold [1 p. 4]
Earth’s field is stronger by
Our analysis160–470×
roughly: 23,000 nT ÷ 143 nT ≈ 160; 67,000 nT ÷ 143 nT ≈ 470. A 350-fold reduction to 143 nT implies a local field of about 50 µT, inside that range.
Nothing about pole shifts, excursions or a weakening field. The word “reversal” occurs once, in the title of a cited perspective piece [1 p. 11][17]. The conclusion’s “potential risk in the case of a significant decrease in GMF” names no place, mechanism or timescale [1 p. 8]; the introduction frames the question around crews beyond low Earth orbit [1 p. 3].
Earth’s axial dipole is about 9% weaker than it was in 1840 [18 p. 1]. At the Laschamp excursion’s low, about 41,000 years ago, global field models put the dipole at roughly 2–5% of today’s [4 §4.2][5 §3][16 p. 7]. Scale a local field of about 50 µT by that and you get 1,000–2,500 nT, still 7 to 17 times the field in the unit. The comparison is rough: excursion models describe the global dipole, and during an excursion the non-dipole parts of the field matter more, so the local field could differ. It would not differ by the factor needed.
6 · Strengths and limitations
Our assessment of the design, with the authors’ own hedges and declarations given their due.
Every number from Figures 3 and 4 is read off the plotted medians by eye. The paper gives no values for them and no data, so none could be recomputed [1 Figs. 3–4][1 p. 9].
We could not obtain the 2022 review behind the reactive-oxygen sentence [9]. It may report more than the rat experiments we traced to three of its authors [11][12].
If the “Before” and “Isolation” columns are the 10 minutes before the unit was switched on, the comparison is within one session; if they are separate background days, it is not [1 pp. 4–5].
We read the preprint in full; for the group’s earlier studies and the ROS literature we read abstracts or records only.
We came to this paper while checking a claim about a magnetic pole shift, which could prime us toward skepticism. To limit that, we rated the paper’s claims against its own statistics and the episode’s against the paper.
A sham session in the same box with the coils off or restoring Earth’s field, with the volunteers and the analysts blinded, as earlier studies in the same facility did [20][19].
A reported test for every index, a correction for the number of indices, and the raw data.
If oxidative stress is the hypothesis, a measurement of it in the blood.
Longer or repeated exposures with a duration arm, before anyone speaks of effects compounding over time.
A controlled replication that again found a faster heart rate in the field would firm up the paper’s one significant finding; one that found the same rise in a sham session would attribute it to the box, not the field.
7 · Conclusions
That under hypomagnetic conditions there is “probably” a change in how the cardiovascular system is regulated, with the sympathoadrenal system activated and the neurogenic control of microvessel tone dominant, and that such conditions “can enhance the effects of oxidative stress”, a potential risk for long-duration spaceflight [1 p. 8][1 p. 2].
The preprint shows that six volunteers’ hearts beat faster, and in one session their systolic pressure rose, after four hours in a coil system at 143 nT, with no sham session to show whether the field or the four hours in the box did it [1 Table 1][1 pp. 4–5]. Everything else in it is a direction without a test or a suggestion drawn from other papers. It measured nothing about reactive oxygen, the brain, mitochondria or blood chemistry, and it says nothing about Earth’s field changing. Treat it as a preliminary observation awaiting a controlled replication, not as evidence that a weakening field is damaging the blood.
Prepared by Fact-Checked Science from the open-access text and figures of Popova et al. (2026), Research Square preprint rs-10996601/v1, CC BY 4.0, not peer reviewed [1]. The charts are redrawn from the paper’s reported numbers; values from its figures are our readings. The assessment is our own and has not been reviewed by the authors.
Bracketed numbers refer to this list. For the preprint [1], p. and pp. give the page numbers printed in its footer (“Page n/15”; the PDF is paginated the same way), Fig. one of its five figures or a panel of one, and Table 1 its only table. For the episode, the time is a position in the video. For the other sources, § gives a section, p. a page and Abstract the abstract. Links checked October 21, 2026.
Popova, O., Rusanov, V., Pashkova, D., Popova, J., and Orlov, O. (2026). Hypomagnetic Exposure and Hemodynamic Response: Macro - To Microscale. Research Square preprint rs-10996601, version 1, posted October 7, 2026, under review at Microgravity Science and Technology; not peer reviewed. Open access, CC BY 4.0.
SpaceWeatherNews (S0) (October 20, 2026). Magnetic Pole Shift Brain Impact, Volcano Warning | S0 News Oct.20.2026. YouTube video. Quoted from the automatically generated transcript; times are positions in the video. The label “Hypomagnetic ROS” is the episode’s own, on its link to the paper in the video’s description.
Chulliat, A., Brown, W., Nair, M., Gomez Perez, N., Young, L.-Y., Watson, C., Boneh, N., Beggan, C., Meyer, B., and Paniccia, M. (2025). The US/UK World Magnetic Model for 2025–2030: Technical Report. NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information.
Korte, M., Brown, M. C., Panovska, S., and Wardinski, I. (2019). Robust characteristics of the Laschamp and Mono Lake geomagnetic excursions: results from global field models. Frontiers in Earth Science 7, 86. CC BY 4.0.
Larsen, N., Usoskin, I., Mishev, A., Koldobskiy, S., and Väisänen, P. (2026). Reduced geomagnetic shielding during the Laschamps excursion and its impact on cosmic-ray-induced atmospheric radiation. Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics 131(2), e2025JA034820. CC BY 4.0.
Pashkova, D., Popova, O., Popova, J., Loktionova, Y., Zharkikh, E., Sidorov, V., Dunaev, A., and Rusanov, V. (2026). Microhemodynamic Adjustments and the Type of Autonomic Regulation Under Analog Long-term Isolation Conditions. Microgravity Science and Technology 38(2), 18. We read the abstract of its preprint (Research Square rs-7815651, CC BY 4.0).
Kukanov, V. Y., Vasin, A. L., Demin, A. V., et al. (2023). Effect of Simulated Hypomagnetic Conditions on Some Physiological Paremeters under 8-Hour Exposure. Experiment Arfa-19. Human Physiology 49(2), 138–146. The spelling “Paremeters” is the journal’s.
Popova, O., Rusanov, V., and Orlov, O. (2024). Vegetative regulation of blood circulation and bioelectric processes in the human myocardium under simulated hypomagnetic conditions. Medicine of Extreme Situations 2024(2).
Shchegolev, B. F., Surma, S. V., Stefanov, V. E., et al. (2022). Biological effects of the weakened geomagnetic field (title translated). Advances in Physiological Sciences (Uspekhi fiziologicheskikh nauk) 53(1), 28–33. In Russian. The preprint cites it for its reactive-oxygen statement; we could not obtain its text.
Zhang, B., and Tian, L. (2020). Reactive Oxygen Species: Potential Regulatory Molecules in Response to Hypomagnetic Field Exposure. Bioelectromagnetics 41(8), 573–580.
Terpilovskii, M. A., Khmelevskoy, D. A., Shchegolev, B. F., Surma, S. V., Stefanov, V. E., Sukharzhevskii, S. M., and Goncharov, N. V. (2019). A Hypomagnetic Field Modulates the Susceptibility of Erythrocytes to tert-Butyl Hydroperoxide in Rats. Biophysics 64(3), 374–380.
Nadeev, A. D., Terpilowski, M. A., Bogdanov, V. A., Khmelevskoy, D. A., Shchegolev, B. F., Surma, S. V., Stefanov, V. E., Jenkins, R. O., and Goncharov, N. V. (2019). Effects of exposure of rat erythrocytes to a hypogeomagnetic field. Biomedical Spectroscopy and Imaging 7(3–4), 105–113.
Zhang, B., Wang, L., Zhan, A., Wang, M., Tian, L., Guo, W., and Pan, Y. (2021). Long-term exposure to a hypomagnetic field attenuates adult hippocampal neurogenesis and cognition. Nature Communications 12, 1174. CC BY 4.0.
Luo, Y., Zhan, A., Fan, Y., and Tian, L. (2022). Effects of hypomagnetic field on adult hippocampal neurogenic niche and neurogenesis in mice. Frontiers in Physics 10, 1075198. CC BY 4.0.
Binhi, V. N., and Prato, F. S. (2017). Biological effects of the hypomagnetic field: An analytical review of experiments and theories. PLoS ONE 12(6), e0179340. CC BY 4.0.
Panovska, S., Korte, M., Liu, J., and Nowaczyk, N. (2021). Global evolution and dynamics of the geomagnetic field in the 15–70 kyr period based on selected paleomagnetic sediment records. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth 126(12), e2021JB022681. CC BY 4.0.
Pan, Y., and Li, J. (2023). On the biospheric effects of geomagnetic reversals. National Science Review 10(6), nwad070. CC BY 4.0.
Finlay, C. C., Aubert, J., and Gillet, N. (2016). Gyre-driven decay of the Earth’s magnetic dipole. Nature Communications 7, 10422. CC BY 4.0.
Kovrov, G., Popova, O., Chernikova, A., and Orlov, O. (2024). The psychophysiological state of a person in altered magnetic conditions. Extreme Medicine 26(3), 57–64.
Gurfinkel, Yu. I., At’kov, O. Yu., Vasin, A. L., Breus, T. K., Sasonko, M. L., and Pishchalnikov, R. Yu. (2016). Effect of zero magnetic field on cardiovascular system and microcirculation. Life Sciences in Space Research 8, 1–7.
Method
On October 21, 2026, we checked every statement, number, quotation and citation on this page against its source: the preprint’s full text and its five figures, read from the publisher’s images and enlarged to check for significance marks; its Crossref record and article page, for the licence and the editorial history; and 18 other sources, 13 resolved through Crossref or PubMed and 5 taken over from our pages on the fruit-fly study and on excursions, about 90 items in all. The episode is quoted from its automatically generated transcript [2]. A fresh reviewer then read the built page against the sources. That check corrected the note on the preprint’s pagination (its PDF has 15 pages, matching the printed footers), a strengths bullet that said every index moved the same way in both sessions when the myogenic share of spectral power did not, “four data figures” to two, the attribution of an earlier sham-controlled study to the authors’ own group, the statement that the paper names no limitation (it names the small sample), which of the episode’s words appear nowhere in the paper and which only in cited titles, the one-line reason under the False verdict, the episode’s timestamps, the wording of the Context verdict and why it differs from Misread, and a dozen smaller points; the change log lists them.
The verdicts and the items tagged “Our analysis” are our own assessment, built on the cited sources: the ratios between the unit’s field and Earth’s, the scaling of an excursion low to the chamber, the exact Wilcoxon p-values for six pairs, our readings of Figures 3 and 4, the tracing of the paper’s reactive-oxygen citation to rat red-cell experiments, and our reading of how the paper’s statistics bear on each claim.
No data or code are public, so nothing could be re-run [1 p. 9]. We recomputed the median differences in Table 1 and the exact null distribution of the Wilcoxon signed-rank test for six pairs; both reproduce. Values from Figures 3 and 4 are approximate readings of the plotted medians. The Russian-language review the paper cites for its reactive-oxygen statement could not be obtained [9].
This page was researched and written with Claude, an AI assistant made by Anthropic, and then re-checked against its sources in a separate verification pass.
Corrections
If we get something wrong, we fix it and record the change below with the date. If a correction changes a verdict, the log says what the old verdict was.