MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2898529289 · doi:10.1088/1741-2552/aaeb0c

On the parameters used in finite element modeling of compound peripheral nerves

2018· article· en· W2898529289 on OpenAlex

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.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neural Engineering · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroscience and Neural Engineering
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of General Medical SciencesFulbright CanadaNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Institutes of HealthNIH Office of the DirectorTriangle Community FoundationDuke University
KeywordsPerineuriumElectrical resistivity and conductivityFascicleMaterials scienceResistive touchscreenFinite element methodAxonBiomedical engineeringComposite materialMechanicsAnatomyPeripheral nervePhysicsThermodynamicsElectrical engineeringBiologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Computational modeling is an important tool for developing and optimizing implantable neural stimulation devices, but requires accurate electrical and geometrical parameter values to improve predictive value. We quantified the effects of perineurial (resistive sheath around each fascicle) and endoneurial (within each fascicle) parameter values for modeling peripheral nerve stimulation. APPROACH: We implemented 3D finite element models of compound peripheral nerves and cuff electrodes to quantify activation and block thresholds of model axons. We also implemented a 2D finite element model of a bundle of axons to estimate the bulk transverse endoneurial resistivity; we compared numerical estimates to an analytical solution. MAIN RESULTS: Since the perineurium is highly resistive, potentials were approximately constant over the cross section of a fascicle, and the perineurium resistivity, longitudinal endoneurial resistivity, and fascicle diameter had important effects on thresholds. Activation thresholds increased up to ~130% for higher perineurium resistivity (~400 versus 2200 Ω m) and by ~35%-250% for lower longitudinal endoneurial resistivity (3.5 versus 0.75 Ω m), with larger increases for smaller diameter axons and for axons in larger fascicles. Further, thresholds increased by ~30%-180% for larger fascicle radii, yielding a larger increase with higher perineurium resistivity. Thresholds were largely insensitive to the transverse endoneurial resistivity, but estimates of the bulk resistivity increased with extracellular resistivity and axonal area fraction; the numerical and analytical estimates were in strong agreement except at high axonal area fractions, where structured axon placements that achieved tighter packing produced electric field inhomogeneities. SIGNIFICANCE: We performed a systematic investigation of the effects of values and methods for modeling the perineurium and endoneurium on thresholds for neural stimulation and block. These results provide guidance for future modeling studies, including parameter selection, data interpretation, and comparison to experimental results.

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.

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)0.001
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 score0.195
Threshold uncertainty score0.440

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.204 · 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