MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2783069472 · doi:10.1115/imece2017-72671

Simulation of Magnetic Field Induced Current for Magnetic Seizure Therapy

2017· article· en· W2783069472 on OpenAlexaff
Abhijeet Wadkar, Prithvi K. Jupalli, Samuel F. Asokanthan

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAdvanced MRI Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsElectromagnetic coilFinite element methodMagnetic fieldCurrent (fluid)Nuclear magnetic resonancePhysicsComputer scienceBiomedical engineeringEngineeringElectrical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Magnetic seizure therapy (MST) is currently on trial as an alternative to Electro-convulsive therapy (ECT) to treat patients suffering from treatment resistant depression (TRD). This paper is concerned with developing a deeper understanding of the mechanics behind MST by employing finite element analysis (FEA) of brain. To this end, a model that consists of concentric spherical layers that represent a realistic anatomical head model has been employed. Simulations performed via COMSOL Multi-physics helped identify the dimensions and coil types for the MST device as well as the angular probing orientations. Largest induced current due to the externally imposed magnetic field was found in the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF), which act as a barrier to induce current in the gray matter. Different copper coil configurations were experimented with namely the cap coil, stacked coil and the multi-stacked coil. These studies are envisaged to provide a quantitative approach to virtually simulate the MST procedure and hence enhance the benefits clinical trials that are currently underway.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.081
GPT teacher head0.430
Teacher spread0.350 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced MRI Techniques and Applications→French-language works237,207→