Maximizing Data Transmission Rate for Implantable Devices Over a Single Inductive Link: Methodological Review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Due to the constantly growing geriatric population and the projected increase of the prevalence of chronic diseases that are refractory to drugs, implantable medical devices (IMDs) such as neurostimulators, endoscopic capsules, artificial retinal prostheses, and brain-machine interfaces are being developed. According to many business forecast firms, the IMD market is expected to grow and they are subject to much research aiming to overcome the numerous challenges of their development. One of these challenges consists of designing a wireless power and data transmission system that has high power efficiency, high data rates, low power consumption, and high robustness against noise. This is in addition to minimal design and implementation complexity. This manuscript concerns a comprehensive survey of the latest techniques used to power up and communicate between an external base station and an IMD. Patient safety considerations related to biological, physical, electromagnetic, and electromagnetic interference concerns for wireless IMDs are also explored. The simultaneous powering and data communication techniques using a single inductive link for both power transfer and bidirectional data communication, including the various data modulation/demodulation techniques, are also reviewed. This review will hopefully contribute to the persistent efforts to implement compact reliable IMDs while lowering their cost and upsurging their benefits.
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.
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Review About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Not applicable | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Review About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Systematic review | low |
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it