Dipole Field Navigation: Theory and Proof of Concept
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To achieve the effective navigation of microscale agents in the vascular network, a high magnetic field strength with high directional magnetic gradients are required. So far, the methods that have been investigated support only one of these specifications but not both. Here, we propose a new method dubbed dipole field navigation (DFN) that provides high field strength to bring magnetic agents at saturation magnetization with gradients exceeding 300 mT/m at any depth within the human body. For DFN, the high field strength is achieved by placing the patient in the tunnel of a clinical MRI scanner, while high gradients are generated by the distortions of the scanner's homogeneous field from larger ferromagnetic cores placed at specific locations outside the patient. The main challenge of DFN lies in the methods that are required to adequately place the cores in the tunnel. Here, a first method is presented to solve the inverse magnetic problem of positioning such a set of cores so that microscale agents could be guided through a desired path in the vascular network. As a first proof of concept, magnetic particles were steered successfully in three consecutive bifurcations in a 3-D in vitro network.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".