ReviewMilitary medicine2026
Radio Frequency Exposure in Military Contexts: A Narrative Review of Thermal Effects and Safety Considerations.
Review in Military medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionRadiofrequency (RF) exposure has been extensively studied for potential health risks. Unlike ionizing radiation, RF fields primarily cause thermal health effects, the only established mechanism of biological harm. Regulatory bodies, including the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) and the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), set limits to prevent excessive heating. This review examines the relationship between RF exposure, heat generation, and physiological responses, with relevance to civilian and military safety.
methodsA narrative review of peer-reviewed literature, regulatory reports, and experimental studies was conducted using PubMed, IEEE Xplore, Google Scholar and Scopus. Emphasis was placed on Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) and Cumulative Equivalent Minutes at 43 °C (CEM43). Studies on thermal effects and exposure scenarios were prioritized; speculative non-thermal mechanisms were excluded.
resultsThermal effects depend on frequency, tissue composition, and environmental conditions. Whole-body SAR limits (≤4 W/kg) generally prevent core temperature increases, but localized heating remains a concern. CEM43 provides a temperature-based metric but is difficult to apply in transient exposures. Penetration depth across NATO frequency bands shows variability because of differences in tissue models and measurement methods. This variability is clinically relevant, as localized heating of the skin, eye, or superficial nerves may occur even when whole-body exposure is within limits.
conclusionCurrent guidelines prevent systemic overheating but may not fully address localized risks. Combining SAR and CEM43 with refined penetration depth data could improve risk assessment. Future work should refine dose-response thresholds and methods for detecting and modeling localized heating, especially under military conditions where thermoregulation may be impaired.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.