Microwave Bladder Monitoring: Analysis of 3×2 Array and Impact of Antenna Location
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper examines the impact of antenna location when using microwave (MW) sensing technology to differentiate between a full and an empty bladder state. A model of the pelvic region, mimicking different tissue properties, was constructed using Ansys HFSS, for both empty and full bladder states. A$2 \times 3$conformal antenna array was placed on the skin of the pelvic model, and a frequency sweep from 1 GHz to 5 GHz was analyzed. It was observed that the largest differences in transmission coefficient between full and empty states occurred between corner antenna pairs not obscured by bone. The top corners produced a difference of 6.0 dB at 3.5 GHz. The diagonal pairs had differences of$\sim 3.4 \text{dB}$at$\sim 4.9 \text{GHz}$. The resonant frequency of the antenna in this model is 3.7 GHz. The reflection coefficients had the largest differences when centered on the bladder:$\sim 1.05 \text{dB}$at 3.7 GHz. These results highlight the importance of antenna position for achieving reliable bladder state detection and provide valuable insights for the development of wearable bladder monitoring devices.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".