MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407564427 · doi:10.1097/hp.0000000000001949

Peripheral Nerve Stimulation Thresholds Based on Waveform Shape and Implications for Guideline Limits

2025· article· en· W4407564427 on OpenAlexaff
Gregory B. Gajda

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Physics · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicElectromagnetic Fields and Biological Effects
Canadian institutionsHealth Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWaveformRheobaseNon-sinusoidal waveformPhysicsFlux (metallurgy)Limit (mathematics)MathematicsAcousticsMathematical analysisControl theory (sociology)VoltageStimulationChemistryComputer scienceNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT: The objective of this paper is to derive basic restrictions for induced internal electric field and reference levels for external magnetic flux density for a class of periodic non-sinusoidal waveforms as multiples of the existing limits applicable to sinusoidal waveforms in current exposure standards. The Law of Electrostimulation and the Spatially Extended Nonlinear Node computational model were used to derive peripheral nerve stimulation thresholds of the internal electric field for both non-sinusoidal and sinusoidal waveforms. Threshold ratios (non-sinusoidal to sinusoidal) permitted basic restrictions and reference levels to be derived as multiples of the sinusoidal ones. Intercomparisons of threshold ratios from both models suggest that they are in agreement for flat-topped flux density waveforms with fast rise-times relative to the period but showed a discrepancy for the continuous sinusoid. Results from the computational model were used to establish the threshold ratios used in the conversion. Resulting non-sinusoidal basic restrictions and reference levels were found to have the same functional relationship with frequency as the sinusoidal ones, consisting of two ranges: a flat rheobase and a frequency-dependent (basic restriction) or inverse frequency-dependent (reference level) portion that intersects the rheobase at a transition frequency that is waveform-dependent. Above the transition frequency, the non-sinusoidal basic restriction was found to be inversely related to the flux density rise-time, resulting in an increased limit for fast-rising waveforms. The transition frequencies of fast-rising waveforms were found to be lowered relative to the sinusoidal one. Above the same transition frequency, the non-sinusoidal reference level is flat with frequency and was found to be approximately 79% lower than the sinusoidal one.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.573
Threshold uncertainty score0.305

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.318 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealth PhysicsSame topicElectromagnetic Fields and Biological EffectsFrench-language works237,207