MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2609775351 · doi:10.1097/hp.0000000000000663

Magnetic Field Reference Levels for Arbitrary Periodic Waveforms for Prevention of Peripheral Nerve Stimulation

2017· article· en· W2609775351 on OpenAlexaff
Gregory B. Gajda, Stephen Bly

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Physics · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAdvanced MRI Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsHealth Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWaveformAmplitudeRheobaseMathematicsPhysicsAcousticsNuclear magnetic resonanceStimulationMathematical analysisControl theory (sociology)OpticsNeuroscienceComputer scienceVoltageQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Guidelines for prevention of peripheral nerve stimulation from exposure to low frequency magnetic fields have been developed by standard-setting bodies. Exposure limits or reference levels (RLs) are typically set in terms of the maximum root-mean-square amplitude of a sinusoidal waveform; however, environmental flux densities are often periodic, non-sinusoidal waveforms. This work presents a procedure for deriving RLs for any generalized periodic waveform using the empirical nerve-stimulation threshold data obtained from human volunteer MRI experiments. For this purpose, the "Law of Electrostimulation" (LOE), which sets forth conditions of a waveform necessary to trigger the action potential required to depolarize cell membranes, is applied to various waveforms. The results of the LOE analysis are waveform-specific, amplitude thresholds of stimulation that are found in terms of the empirically-derived rheobase threshold time-rate-of-change flux density and chronaxie from trapezoidal pulse MRI experiments. The thresholds are converted to amplitude RLs in two asymptotic frequency regimes as per the usual practice in standard setting. The resulting RLs have the same frequency dependence as in existing standards (i.e., inverse-frequency below a transition frequency and flat above). It is shown that the transition frequency is dependent only on the shape of the waveform. Both sinusoidal and non-sinusoidal waveforms have identical peak-to-peak amplitude RLs above their respective transition frequencies. Below these frequencies, all peak-to-peak amplitude RLs have the same functional dependence on frequency when the frequency is normalized to the waveform-specific transition frequency. This results in simple criteria for testing the amplitude of any arbitrary periodic waveform against potential for stimulation. These criteria are compared to guidance given for non-sinusoidal waveforms in the ICNIRP 1 Hz-100 kHz exposure standard.

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.922
Threshold uncertainty score0.265

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 head0.126
GPT teacher head0.444
Teacher spread0.318 · 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 designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations3
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealth PhysicsSame topicAdvanced MRI Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207