MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A finite element modeling study of peripheral nerve recruitment by percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation in the human lower leg

2018· article· en· W2792161212 on OpenAlexafffund
Christopher W. Elder, Paul B. Yoo

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Engineering & Physics · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicUrinary Bladder and Prostate Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsStimulationPercutaneousTibial nerveSaphenous nerveReflexCadaverPeripheralMedicineAnatomyOveractive bladderAxonBiomedical engineeringMaterials scienceAnesthesiaSurgeryInternal medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation (PTNS) is a clinical therapy for treating overactive bladder (OAB), where an un-insulated stainless steel needle electrode is used to target electrically the tibial nerve (TN) in the lower leg. Recent studies in anesthetized animals not only confirm that bladder-inhibitory reflexes can be evoked by stimulating the TN, but this reflex can also be evoked by stimulating the adjacent saphenous nerve (SAFN). Although cadaver studies indicate that the TN and major SAFN branch(es) overlap at the location of stimulation, the extent to which SAFN branches are co-activated is unknown. In this study, we constructed a finite element model of the human lower leg and applied a numeric axon model (MRG model) to simulate the electrical recruitment of TN and SAFN fibers during PTNS. The model showed that up to 80% of SAFN fibers (located at the level of the needle electrode) can be co-activated when electrical pulses are applied at the TN activation threshold, the standard therapeutic amplitude. Both the location of the inserted electrode and stimulation amplitude were important variables that affected the recruitment of SAFN branches. This study suggests further work is needed to investigate the potential therapeutic effects of SAFN stimulation in OAB patients.

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)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.214
Threshold uncertainty score0.470

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.285 · 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

Citations15
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical Engineering & PhysicsSame topicUrinary Bladder and Prostate ResearchFrench-language works237,207