Pacemaker interference by 60-Hz contact currents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Contact currents occur when a person touches conductive surfaces at different potentials, thereby completing a path for current flow through the body. Such currents provide an additional coupling mechanism between the human body and external low-frequency fields. The resulting fields induced in the body can cause interference with implanted cardiac pacemakers. Modern computing resources used in conjunction with millimeter-scale human body conductivity models make numerical modeling a viable technique for examining any such interference. An existing well-verified scalar-potential finite-difference frequency-domain code has recently been modified to allow for combined current and voltage electrode sources, as well as to allow for implanted wires. Here, this code is used to evaluate the potential for cardiac pacemaker interference by contact currents in a variety of configurations. These include current injection into either hand, and extraction via: 1) the opposite hand; 2) the soles of both feet; or 3) the opposite hand and both feet. Pacemaker generator placement in both the left and right pectoral areas is considered in conjunction with atrial and ventricular electrodes. In addition, the effects of realistically implanted unipolar pacemaker leads with typical lumped resistance values of either 20 kohms and 100 kohms are investigated. It is found that the 60-Hz contact current interference thresholds for typical sensitivity settings of unipolar cardiac pacemaker range from 24 to 45 microA. Voltage and electric field dosimetry are also used to provide crude threshold estimates for bipolar pacemaker interference. The estimated contact current thresholds range from 63 to 340 microA for bipolar pacemakers.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".