MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2154470007 · doi:10.1109/10.983460

Pacemaker interference by magnetic fields at power line frequencies

2002· article· en· W2154470007 on OpenAlexaff
Trevor W. Dawson, K. Caputa, M.A. Stuchly, Richard B. Shepard, Robert Kavet, Antonio Sastre

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWireless Body Area Networks
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEMIElectromagnetic interferenceCardiac pacemakerInterference (communication)Magnetic fieldComputationElectrical conductorScalar (mathematics)Electronic engineeringScalar potentialElectromotive forceElectromagnetic compatibilityElectromagnetic fieldElectrical engineeringPhysicsAcousticsMaterials scienceComputer scienceEngineeringMathematicsChannel (broadcasting)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Human exposure to external 50/60-Hz electric and magnetic fields induces electric fields within the body. These induced fields can cause interference with implanted pacemakers. In the case of exposure to magnetic fields, the pacemaker leads are subject to induced electromotive forces, with current return paths being provided by the conducting body tissues. Modern computing resources used in conjunction with millimeter-scale human body conductivity models make numerical modeling a viable technique for examining any such interference. In this paper, an existing well-verified scalar-potential finite-difference frequency-domain code is modified to handle thin conducting wires embedded in the body. The effects of each wire can be included numerically by a simple modification to the existing code. Results are computed for two pacemaker lead insertion paths, terminating at either atrial or ventricular electrodes in the heart. Computations are performed for three orthogonal 60-Hz magnetic field orientations. Comparison with simplified estimates from Faraday's law applied directly to extracorporeal loops representing unipolar leads underscores problems associated with this simplified approach. Numerically estimated electromagnetic interference (EMI) levels under the worst case scenarios are about 40 microT for atrial electrodes, and 140 microT for ventricular electrodes. These methods could also be applied to studying EMI with other implanted devices such as cardiac defibrillators.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.183
Teacher spread0.174 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations55
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Biomedical EngineeringSame topicWireless Body Area NetworksFrench-language works237,207