A multi-criteria decision analysis of implanted biomedical device antenna: electro-thermal simulation, design, and data analysis
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
In this article, three elemental (dipole, loop, and meander) designs of an implanted biomedical device (IBD) antenna are studied to provide an enhanced understanding of fundamental (material and geometry) factors which would contribute to the regulation of a steady vital sign, with minimal effect on the surrounding tissue during monitoring and treatment. Dipole and Loop antennas are known to offer similar advantages in that they are both balanced antennas, while the Meander antenna is likely to offer better radiation resistance. The investigation was carried out through the design of experiments and finite element modeling of the temperature field due to the AC level applied (10 or 100mA), under the geometry of each given antenna type and three material options (Titanium, Cobalt Chromium, and Macor). Finally, a multi-criteria decision-making process is applied to select the optimal design under maximum field temperature, thermal conductivity, electrical conductivity, density, and specific heat attributes. The findings suggested that the Meander design made of Titanium would allow for a maximized overall performance with minimal thermal and radiation effects.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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