## 3 Results  
To assess the biological system's response, parameter X was utilized, as defined in Equation (9). To enhance result interpretation, the formula was subsequently transformed into percentages. When \(X\) equaled one, there was no alteration in the cell growth state, and the corresponding percentage remained at zero. However, when the applied field stimulated the growth of cells, the effect coefficient yielded a positive percentage value. Conversely, if the field inhibited the cellular growth, the coefficient fell within the range of negative values. The outcomes of the experiments are graphically presented in Figure 5 after MF exposure without adherence to IPR conditions (1 st set of experiments) and Figure 6 following 7 h of MF exposure with artificial IPR conditions set (2 nd set of experiments). These figures also illustrate the average growth coefficient for each experiment, contingent upon the sample's position within the coil cavity. In both cases, the arithmetic mean predominantly fell within the positive value range, indicating a likely stimulation effect. Error bars represent data uncertainty or variation, calculated as the standard error from all 10 experiments at each sample position (E-A). Figure 5: (**A**) Biological system responses after 7 h of EMF exposure with nonspecific ELF EMF exposure–1 st set of experiments. (**B**) Corresponding scatterplot of E and C distribution during the whole set of 10 experiments. Comparison of Means  
A two-sample two-tailed Student's t-test was utilized to compare the mean values of the exposed and control samples, with the assumption of equal variances in their normal distributions. The results for both examined groups are displayed in Table 6. The null hypothesis H0, which postulated that the growth coefficients of the exposed and control samples are identical, was countered by the alternative hypothesis H1, which suggested a statistically significant disparity between the growth coefficients of these two sample sets. The calculated \(p\)-values were found to be below 0.05, resulting in the null hypothesis being rejected in favor of the alternative. Furthermore, statistically significant distinctions in the growth coefficients between the exposed and control samples within both examined groups were revealed by both the frequency histograms (depicted in Figure 7) and the box plots (illustrated in Figure 8). Respective scatterplots are presented in Figure 9. This mathematical analysis affirmed the impact of grid frequency MF after exposure, whether IPR conditions were not observed or when artificial IPR conditions were applied. Consequently, it is likely that the ion parametric resonance model may not serve as an accurate non-thermal explanation for the influence of a low-frequency electromagnetic field on biological systems. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c} \hline \hline
**t-Statistic (t Value)** & \(p\)**-Value** \\ \hline \hline Exposure with nonspecific conditions \\ \hline
2.2339 & 0.0278 \\ \hline Exposure with artificial settings of IPR conditions \\ \hline
2.6285 & 0.0100 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 6: Independent two-sample two-tailed Student’s t-test. The t-statistic measures how far apart the group means are in terms of standard errors. The larger the t-value, the more likely it is that the difference in means is statistically significant. Similarly, if the \(p\)-value is less than the significance level (in this case, 0.05), the null hypothesis is rejected, suggesting that there is a statistically significant difference between the group means. Figure 7: The frequency histogram of samples after 7-h ELF EMF exposure with nonspecific conditions (**left**) and with artificial settings (**right**) of IPR conditions. Frequency of occurrence of specific value of partial growth coefficient for the exposed (E) and control (C) sample within the whole dataset.