ArticleProceedings. IEEE International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging2016
Evaluation of Numerical Techniques for Solving the Current Injection Problem in Biological Tissues.
Article in Proceedings. IEEE International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Development, validation, and pilot MRI safety study of a high-resolution, open source, whole body pediatric numerical simulation model.PloS one · 2021Trial
- Noninvasive Electrical Stimulation Neuromodulation and Digital Brain Technology: A Review.Biomedicines · 2023Review
- Lesion-Constrained Electrical Source Imaging: A Novel Approach in Epilepsy Surgery for Tuberous Sclerosis Complex.Journal of clinical neurophysiology : official publication of the American Electroencephalographic Society · 2020Article
- Benchmarking transcranial electrical stimulation finite element models: a comparison study.Journal of neural engineering · 2019Article
- Virtual Human Models for Electromagnetic Studies and Their Applications.IEEE reviews in biomedical engineering · 2017Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Accurate computational modeling of electric fields in the human head has become important in clinical research to study or influence brain functionality. While existing numerical approaches have been evaluated against simple geometries with known closed form solutions, the relationship between these approaches in more complex geometries has not been studied. Here, we compare the three most commonly used approaches for bioelectric modeling: the finite element method (FEM), the finite difference method (FDM), and the boundary element method (BEM). Using both isotropic and anisotropic conductivity distributions, we construct and compare bioelectric models for a realistic head geometry. Our results suggest that both FEM and FDM are capable of accurately model voltages in the brain, while computations from BEM result in significantly larger errors, due to the increased simplicity and implicit model assumptions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.