MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2128935799 · doi:10.1109/ner.2011.5910527

Quantitative modeling of electric field in deep brain stimulation: Study of medium brain tissue and stimulation pulse parameters

2011· article· en· W2128935799 on OpenAlexaff
J. F. H. Saad, S. R. I. Gabran, M.M.A. Salama, Raafat R. Mansour

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeurological disorders and treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDeep brain stimulationFinite-difference time-domain methodBrain tissueElectromagnetic fieldStimulationWhite matterBiomedical engineeringElectric fieldElectrodeComputer scienceMaterials scienceNeurosciencePhysicsEngineeringMedicineOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper introduces a finite difference time domain (FDTD) model for the electromagnetic simulation and analysis of a 4-channel deep brain stimulation (DBS) electrode. The analysis uses non-homogenous tissue models representing the gray and white tissue matter. The model includes the encapsulation layer of unexcitable tissues. Several low frequency signal models for brain tissue and the DBS electrode are developed to investigate the effect of the dielectric properties, stimulation pulse parameters and firing pattern (current steering) on controlling the field intensity distribution. These models are used to provide a quantitative formulation of the tissue-field interaction and the parameters influencing the electric field distribution within the brain tissue. The simulation results provide reference and benchmarking data for DBS electrode development.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.072
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.272 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicNeurological disorders and treatments→French-language works237,207→