MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2159894132 · doi:10.1109/tbme.2004.834251

Peripheral Nerve Stimulation by Gradient Switching Fields in Magnetic Resonance Imaging

2004· article· en· W2159894132 on OpenAlexaff
P.P.M. So, M.A. Stuchly, J.A. Nyenhuis

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAdvanced MRI Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMagnetic resonance imagingTorsoBiomagnetismElectromagnetic coilCoronal planeMagnetic fieldNuclear magnetic resonancePhysicsBiomedical engineeringMaterials scienceStimulationMagnetic resonance neurographyAnatomyMedicineRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A heterogeneous model of the human body and the scalar potential finite difference method are used to compute electric fields induced in tissue by magnetic field exposures. Two types of coils are considered that simulate exposure to gradient switching fields during magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). These coils producing coronal (y axis) and axial (z axis) magnetic fields have previously been used in experiments with humans. The computed fields can, therefore, be directly compared to human response data. The computed electric fields in subcutaneous fat and skin corresponding to peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) thresholds in humans in simulated MRI experiments range from 3.8 to 5.8 V/m for the fields exceeded in 0.5% of tissue volume (skin and fat of the torso). The threshold depends on coil type and position along the body, and on the anatomy and resolution of the human body model. The computed values are in agreement with previously established thresholds for neural stimulation.

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)0.000
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.002

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.245 · 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

Citations77
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Biomedical EngineeringSame topicAdvanced MRI Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207