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 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 · 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.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
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 score0.953
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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