# CTX-005 — Essential same-cohort boundary for Nittby's cognitive finding

Why this matters
These are the same rats used for the memory paper RF-029 . Their brain-tissue examination did not demonstrate neuronal injury. Reading both papers together prevents a memory-test result from becoming an unsupported claim of brain-cell loss, and prevents one experiment from being counted twice.

Id: CTX-005

Author: Grafström et al.

Full Authors: Gustav Grafström; Henrietta Nittby; Arne Brun; Lars Malmgren; Bertil R. R. Persson; Leif G. Salford; Jacob Eberhardt

Year: 2008

Title: Histopathological examinations of rat brains after long-term exposure to GSM-900 mobile phone radiation

Journal: Brain Research Bulletin

Citation: Grafström G, Nittby H, Brun A, Malmgren L, Persson BRR, Salford LG, Eberhardt J. Histopathological examinations of rat brains after long-term exposure to GSM-900 mobile phone radiation. Brain Research Bulletin. 2008;77(5):257-263. doi:10.1016/j.brainresbull.2008.08.004.

Doi: 10.1016/j.brainresbull.2008.08.004

Pmid: 18782606

Topic: Animal cognition; linked pathology

Verification Group: Replication and cohort context

Record Role: Replication or cohort context

Featured: False

Exposure: Same weekly GSM-900 exposures for 55 weeks as RF-029; initial whole-body SAR 0.0006 or 0.06 W/kg; final approximately 0.0004 or 0.04 W/kg. Animals examined 6-7 weeks after last exposure.

Design: Original methods: 56 randomized mixed-sex Fischer 344 rats, four groups (16 low,16 high,16 sham,8 cage); 54 brains available; neuropathologist blind, cresyl violet/albumin/GFAP/Sudan Black B/Gallyas staining.

Finding: Blinded histology found no significant group differences in albumin leakage, dark neurons, glial reactions, lipofuscin or cytoskeletal/neuritic changes. No correlation joined albumin leakage/dark neurons to cognitive performance. Thus the cognitive observation was not explained by demonstrated neuronal damage.

Boundary: Included solely as a necessary same-cohort interpretive boundary, not as a separately recruited reassuring-literature sample. Brain-SAR orientation variability was substantial (56% standard deviation around average). Later review quoted an erroneous 0.06-0.6 W/kg range; use original units.

Related: Identical animals to RF-029; count once. Earlier acute Salford experiments differ in regimen and age.

Protection Question: Can a memory-test difference be explained by neuronal damage in these rats? The companion histology did not demonstrate it. Functional and tissue endpoints remain distinct, and these publications represent the same cohort.

Access: Original indexed body, all 35,875 characters read through Scite

Locator: GSM exposure; Animals; Histopathology and methods; Histopathological examinations; Individual correlation; Discussion

Notice: Scite metadata checked 20 Oct 2026; no editorial notice returned. Primary bibliographic records and targeted notices were checked where retrievable; no retraction or expression of concern located. This is not certification that no notice exists.

Funding: Not stated in indexed body obtained; not inferred.

Conflicts: Not stated in indexed body obtained; not inferred.

Source Url: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainresbull.2008.08.004

Retrieval Links: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainresbull.2008.08.004 | https://lup.lub.lu.se/record/1243196 | https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18782606/

Verification Date: 2026-10-20