MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3212631064 · doi:10.1109/tbcas.2021.3125618

Safety-Optimized Inductive Powering of Implantable Medical Devices: Tutorial and Comprehensive Design Guide

2021· article· en· W3212631064 on OpenAlexafffund

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Biomedical Circuits and Systems · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWireless Power Transfer Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsDeliverableElectromagnetic coilInductorSpecific absorption ratePower (physics)PlanarMaximum power transfer theoremSpiral (railway)Magnetic flux

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A tutorial and comprehensive guide are presented for the design of planar spiral inductors with maximum energy delivery in biomedical implants. Rather than maximizing power transfer efficiency (PTE), the ratio of the received power to the square of the magnetic flux density is maximized in this technique. This ensures that the highest power is delivered for a given level of safe electromagnetic radiation, as measured by the specific absorption rate (SAR) in the tissue. By using quasi-static field approximations, the maximum deliverable power under SAR constraints is embedded in a lumped-element model of a 2-coil inductive link, from which planar coil geometries are derived. To compare the proposed methodology with the conventional approach that maximizes PTE, the results of both techniques are compared for three examples of state-of-the-art designs. It is demonstrated that the presented technique increases the maximum deliverable power while operating at a given level of non-ionizing radiation by factors of 8×, 410×, and 560× as compared to the three existing designs, and maintaining moderate link efficiencies of 12%, 23%, and 12%, respectively.

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)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.071

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0210.013

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.218 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations16
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Biomedical Circuits and SystemsSame topicWireless Power Transfer SystemsFrench-language works237,207