The discrepancy between human peripheral nerve chronaxie times as measured using magnetic and electric field stimuli: the relevance to MRI gradient coil safety
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) resulting from electric fields induced from the rapidly changing magnetic fields of gradient coils is a concern in MRI. Nerves exposed to either electric fields or changing magnetic fields would be expected to display consistent threshold characteristics, motivating the direct application of electric field exposure criteria from the literature to guide the development of gradient magnetic field exposure criteria for MRI. The consistency of electric and magnetic field exposures was tested by comparing chronaxie times for electric and magnetic PNS curves for 22 healthy human subjects. Electric and magnetic stimulation thresholds were measured for exposure of the forearm using both surface electrodes and a figure-eight magnetic coil, respectively. The average chronaxie times for the electric and magnetic field conditions were 109 +/- 11 micros and 651 +/- 53 micros (+/-SE), respectively. We do not propose that these results call into question the basic mechanism, namely that rapidly switched gradient magnetic fields induce electric fields in human tissues, resulting in PNS. However, this result does motivate us to suggest that special care must be taken when using electric field exposure data from the literature to set gradient coil PNS safety standards in MRI.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".