Evidence map›Paper›PMID 10198528›Full record

ArticleMedical & biological engineering & computing1998

Comparison of multipole and mean value methods to quantify dust in human lungs: simulating the magnetopneumography procedure.

M Forsman, P Högstedt

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Medical & biological engineering & computing, 1998. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

M ForsmanDepartment of Applied Electronics, Chalmers University of Technology, Göteborg, Sweden. mikael.forsman@lindholmen.se
P Högstedt

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Magnetopneumography (MPG) can quantify the retention of magnetisable particles in the lung acquired, for instance, in welding work. MPG is non-invasive and is used in occupational health, industrial hygiene and lung physiology. Following a brief magnetisation, the remanent magnetic field is mapped with magnetometers outside the thorax. There is no unique analytical inverse solution to this class of magnetostatic problem, and various inverse methods have been proposed. In the present study, the influence of variations in size and shape of the lungs and chest, magnetic measurement noise, positional noise and spatial dust distribution are investigated in five inverse methods. The mean value of the field map, calibrated against a lung phantom, is the commonly used method. Lung and chest size influence the mean value method solutions strongly. Correction for chest size reduces these errors, but bias errors and sensitivity to the deposition pattern remains a problem. A multipolar expansion, including dipolar, quadrupolar and octopolar moments, yields best results overall, provided the single-to-noise ratio is sufficient. This inverse solution is unbiased, requires no calibration with phantom lung models and serves to minimise errors due to inter-individual differences in anatomy and to inhomogeneous retention of inhaled dust.

Indexed as

DustLungMagneticsForeign BodiesHumansModels, BiologicalDust

Identifiers

PMID10198528

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.