MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2130153777 · doi:10.1109/iembs.2006.259880

Numerical Evaluation of Radio Frequency Power Deposition in Human Models during MRI

2006· article· en· W2130153777 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

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElectromagnetic Compatibility and Measurements
Canadian institutionsUniversity of VictoriaUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTorsoFinite-difference time-domain methodRadio frequencyDosimetryPower (physics)Numerical modelingFrequency domainComputer scienceBiomedical engineeringAcousticsPhysicsTelecommunicationsEngineeringNuclear medicineMedicineOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Concerns have been expressed about safety of MRI examination of two groups of people, namely pregnant mothers and cardiac pacemaker bearers. The main uncertainty relates to excessive heating by pulsed radio frequency (RF) fields. To address these issues, numerical evaluations of the power deposition are performed for a 27-week old fetus in a simplified model of the mother, and a realistic model of a human torso with an in situ pacemaker including its leads. The evaluations are supplemented with organ dosimetry for a realistic model of the human torso. An ideal non-resonant and two resonant birdcage coils operating at 64 MHz (corresponding to 1.5 T MRI) are evaluated. All simulations are performed with the finite difference time domain (FDTD) method.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.290
Threshold uncertainty score0.285

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.215 · 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