MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400351987 · doi:10.1109/tbme.2024.3424199

Design of Electrically Small Intraocular Antenna for Retinal Prosthesis System and Its Validation

2024· article· en· W4400351987 on OpenAlexafffund
Sumon Modak, Vikrant Kaim, Aijaz M. Zaidi, Binod Kumar Kanaujia, Karumudi Rambabu

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroscience and Neural Engineering
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersScience and Engineering Research BoardNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsRetinal ProsthesisAntenna (radio)RetinalProsthesisProsthesis designEngineeringComputer scienceOptometryOphthalmologyMedicineElectrical engineeringArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: This paper presents an ultra-miniaturized circular-shaped triple band microstrip antenna as an intraocular unit applicable for retinal prosthesis. METHODS: The reported antenna is developed by modifying a conventional circular-shaped patch with a pair of open-ended circular annular rings and a semicircular ring-loaded rectangular stub. Additionally, a shorting pin is used at the periphery of the patch to achieve the frequency bands of interest. Further, to make the structure electrically small and accommodate highly dense electrodes, the circular ground plane is modified by making symmetrical slots over the four quadrants and edges. Specific absorption rate distribution for 1 g and 10 g of different tissue layers over three operating frequencies has been studied by placing electromagnetic sources at different locations. RESULTS: With these arrangements, the proposed strip antenna offers multiband operation within the frequency band of 1.25 GHz (1.13-1.46 GHz), 2.45 GHz (2.24-2.66 GHz), and 3.32 GHz (3.09-3.50 GHz). Besides, circularly polarized radiation has also been achieved at 1.25 GHz with a 3-dB axial ratio bandwidth of 10 MHz. CONCLUSION: Finally, the proposed antenna structure is fabricated, and its measured performance metrics are in close aggreement with the simulated parameters. SIGNIFICANCE: The proposed antenna's performance inside a customized canonical eye model (DMCM) and anthropomorphic Zubal head model is studied and compared with the prior studies.

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 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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.941
Threshold uncertainty score0.562

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.206 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations12
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Biomedical EngineeringSame topicNeuroscience and Neural EngineeringFrench-language works237,207