MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2170081726 · doi:10.1109/tbme.2003.816082

Measurement of thoracic current flow in pigs for the study of defibrillation and cardioversion

2003· article· en· W2170081726 on OpenAlexaff
Richard S. Yoon, T.P. DeMonte, K.F. Hasanov, Dawn Jorgenson, M.L.G. Joy

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAdvanced MRI Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDefibrillationTorsoCurrent (fluid)Current densityBiomedical engineeringMedicineFlow (mathematics)Nuclear magnetic resonanceCardiologyPhysicsElectrical engineeringMechanicsAnatomyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although defibrillation has been in clinical use for more than 50 years, the complete current flow distribution inside the body during a defibrillation procedure has never been directly measured. This is due to the lack of appropriate imaging technology to noninvasively monitor the current flow inside the body. The current density imaging (CDI) technique, using a magnetic resonance (MR) imager, provides a new approach to this problem [Scott et al. (1991)]. CDI measures the local magnetic field generated by the current and calculates the current density by computing its curl. In this study, CDI was used to measure current density at all points within a postmortem pig torso during an electrical current application through defibrillation electrodes. Furthermore, current flow information was visualized along the chest wall and within the chest cavity using streamline analysis. As expected, some of the highest current densities were observed in the chest wall. However, current density distribution varied significantly from one region to another, possibly reflecting underlying heterogeneous tissue conductivity and anisotropy. Moreover, the current flow analysis revealed many complex and unexpected current flow patterns that have never been observed before. This study has, for the first time, noninvasively measured the volume current measurement inside the pig torso.

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 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.936
Threshold uncertainty score0.184

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.284 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations51
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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