Domain Heterogeneity in Radiofrequency Therapies for Pain Relief: A Computational Study with Coupled Models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of the current research work is to study the differences between the predicted ablation volume in homogeneous and heterogeneous models of typical radiofrequency (RF) procedures for pain relief. A three-dimensional computational domain comprising of the realistic anatomy of the target tissue was considered in the present study. A comparative analysis was conducted for three different scenarios: (a) a completely homogeneous domain comprising of only muscle tissue, (b) a heterogeneous domain comprising of nerve and muscle tissues, and (c) a heterogeneous domain comprising of bone, nerve and muscle tissues. Finite-element-based simulations were performed to compute the temperature and electrical field distribution during conventional RF procedures for treating pain, and exemplified here for the continuous case. The predicted results reveal that the consideration of heterogeneity within the computational domain results in distorted electric field distribution and leads to a significant reduction in the attained ablation volume during the continuous RF application for pain relief. The findings of this study could provide first-hand quantitative information to clinical practitioners about the impact of such heterogeneities on the efficacy of RF procedures, thereby assisting them in developing standardized optimal protocols for different cases of interest.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".