MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2744081374 · doi:10.1109/marss.2017.8001903

Seeking optimal magnetic core shapes for strong gradient generation in Dipole Field Navigation

2017· article· en· W2744081374 on OpenAlexafffund
Maxime Latulippe, Sylvain Martel

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicMicro and Nano Robotics
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique Montréal
FundersCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsMicroscale chemistryMagnetic fieldDipoleFerromagnetismMagnetic dipoleScannerComputer scienceContext (archaeology)PhysicsAcousticsMaterials scienceComputational physicsCondensed matter physicsArtificial intelligenceGeologyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dipole Field Navigation (DFN) has been proposed previously as a promising remote magnetic actuation method for the navigation of microscale agents in vascular networks for the targeted delivery of therapeutics. This method exploits the strong magnetic field of a magnetic resonance imaging scanner to bring the agents at saturation magnetization, and relies on the proper positioning of ferromagnetic cores around the patient in the scanner to induce strong magnetic gradients for navigation. It is currently the only method providing both the high field and high gradient strengths required for the navigation of microparticles at the human scale. Because of the simpler magnetic models of this shape, previous works on DFN considered only spherical ferromagnetic cores. This work investigates different core shapes and shows that the sphere can be outperformed for deep tissue interventions. The gradients around different shapes, calculated by finite element modeling, are compared in the context of typical DFN conditions. Results show that, for the same amount of ferromagnetic material, the hemisphere and the disc generate significantly higher gradients (>50% gains) in deep tissues. Using those shapes instead of spheres would therefore improve the performances of DFN for targeting deep regions in the body.

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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.896
Threshold uncertainty score0.264

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.255 · 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

Citations2
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMicro and Nano RoboticsFrench-language works237,207