MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413138899 · doi:10.1038/s41598-025-12284-0

In situ electric field dosimetry analysis for powerline frequency peripheral nerve magnetic stimulation

2025· article· en· W4413138899 on OpenAlexafffund
Eleonore Fresnel, Nicolas Bouisset, Florian Soyka, Carsten Alteköster, Frank S. Prato, Alexandre Legros

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific Reports · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroscience and Neural Engineering
Canadian institutionsLawson Health Research InstituteWestern University
FundersÉlectricité de FranceMitacsElectricité de FranceHydro-Québec
KeywordsPeripheralPeripheral nerveStimulationElectric stimulationIn situElectric fieldDosimetryMedicineNuclear magnetic resonanceBiomedical engineeringComputer sciencePhysicsNuclear medicineInternal medicineAnatomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Humans are exposed to environmental 60 Hz magnetic fields (MFs), inducing in our body electric fields (EFs) and currents, potentially stimulating the peripheral nervous system (PNS). Uncertainties exist regarding the 60 Hz MF PNS stimulation threshold. The spatially extended nonlinear node model (SENN) is used to help define international MF exposure guidelines and standards protecting workers and the general public. However, other models exist, particularly the McIntyre-Richardson-Grill (MRG) model, the new gold standard for electrostimulation. This study aims (1) to model a new extremely low frequency MF exposure system for the human leg and (2) to investigate the in situ EFs generated by the system at 60 Hz at the skin level and in the nerves of the leg using a realistic human body model with both the SENN and the MRG models. A Helmholtz like-coil system was designed to generate in situ EFs sufficient for nerve stimulation, modeled using Biot-Savart and Faraday laws. Sim4Life simulations assessed the induced EFs at skin and nerve levels using a detailed human body model and two nerve excitation frameworks: the SENN and MRG models. High EF intensities were observed in four sensory and sensory-motor nerves, with MRG-derived thresholds lower than SENN-derived thresholds. Results also highlight the significance of nerve orientation in EF induction. This study emphasizes the critical role of comprehensive modeling for the design and validation of MF exposure systems and underscores the need for experimental data to refine models, standards, and guidelines.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.556

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.006
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.267 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScientific ReportsSame topicNeuroscience and Neural EngineeringFrench-language works237,207