ArticleMedical & biological engineering & computing2009
Activating function of needle electrodes in anisotropic tissue.
Article in Medical & biological engineering & computing, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Nightingale Prize 2010 for best MBEC paper in 2009 awarded.Medical & biological engineering & computing · 2010Article
- The influence of skeletal muscle anisotropy on electroporation: in vivo study and numerical modeling.Medical & biological engineering & computing · 2010Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We present an analytical solution for the electrical potential and activating function (AF) established by cylindrical needle electrodes in anisotropic tissue. We compare this activating function to (1) AF computed assuming line-source electrodes and (2) AF computed using a finite element program. The results show that when the fiber is two needle diameters away from the electrodes, the maximum of the AF for needle electrodes is 1.43-times larger than for line-source electrodes, which results in lower thresholds for stimulation and electroporation. Therefore, for fibers that are close to the stimulating electrodes, one would benefit from using the formula that accounts for the electrodes' geometry.
Indexed as
Identifiers
19579040What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.