MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2118017689 · doi:10.1109/10.867951

Pacemaker interference and low-frequency electric induction in humans by external fields and electrodes

2000· article· en· W2118017689 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicECG Monitoring and Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsElectromagnetic interferenceInterference (communication)Electric fieldElectrodeElectromagnetic fieldElectromagneticsElectrical engineeringPhysicsElectromagnetic inductionElectronic engineeringAcousticsEngineeringElectromagnetic coil

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The possibility of interference by low-frequency external electric fields with cardiac pacemakers is a matter of practical concern. For pragmatic reasons, experimental investigations into such interference have used contact electrode current sources. However, the applicability to the external electric field problem remains unclear. The recent development of anatomically based electromagnetic models of the human body, together with progress in computational electromagnetics, enable the use of numerical modeling to quantify the relationship between external field and contact electrode excitation. This paper presents a comparison between the computed fields induced in a 3.6-mm-resolution conductivity model of the human body by an external electric field and by several electrode source configurations involving the feet and either the head or shoulders. The application to cardiac pacemaker interference is also indicated.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.313
Threshold uncertainty score0.445

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.006
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.220 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it