Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30507555›Full record

ArticleJournal of neural engineering2019

On the parameters used in finite element modeling of compound peripheral nerves.

Nicole A Pelot, Christina E Behrend, Warren M Grill

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of neural engineering, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 39 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
39citing 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

39 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Few-shot segmentation and fiber tractography of human vagus nerve using 3D-MUSE imaging.Proceedings of SPIE--the International Society for Optical Engineering · 2025
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Computational modeling of autonomic nerve stimulation: Vagus et al.Current opinion in biomedical engineering · 2024
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Quasistatic approximation in neuromodulation.Journal of neural engineering · 2024
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. NRV: An open framework forbioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2024
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

3 authors.

Nicole A PelotDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Duke University, Room 1427, Fitzpatrick CIEMAS, 101 Science Drive, Campus Box 90281, Durham, NC 27708, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0003-2844-0190
Christina E BehrendDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Duke University, Room 1427, Fitzpatrick CIEMAS, 101 Science Drive, Campus Box 90281, Durham, NC 27708, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-5718-116X
Warren M GrillDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Duke University, Room 1427, Fitzpatrick CIEMAS, 101 Science Drive, Campus Box 90281, Durham, NC 27708, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0001-5240-6588

Funding

MEDICAL SCIENTIST TRAINING PROGRAMT32GM007171 · NIGMS · DUKE UNIVERSITY · PI KONTOS, CHRISTOPHER D · 1985 to 2021
$31.2M
Modeling Activation and Block of Autonomic Nerves for Analysis and DesignOT2OD025340 · OD · DUKE UNIVERSITY · PI GRILL, WARREN M. · 2017 to 2021
$5.9M
NIGMS NIH HHS T32 GM007171NIH HHS OT2 OD025340
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveComputational modeling is an important tool for developing and optimizing implantable neural stimulation devices, but requires accurate electrical and geometrical parameter values to improve predictive value. We quantified the effects of perineurial (resistive sheath around each fascicle) and endoneurial (within each fascicle) parameter values for modeling peripheral nerve stimulation. APPROACH: We implemented 3D finite element models of compound peripheral nerves and cuff electrodes to quantify activation and block thresholds of model axons. We also implemented a 2D finite element model of a bundle of axons to estimate the bulk transverse endoneurial resistivity; we compared numerical estimates to an analytical solution. MAIN

resultsSince the perineurium is highly resistive, potentials were approximately constant over the cross section of a fascicle, and the perineurium resistivity, longitudinal endoneurial resistivity, and fascicle diameter had important effects on thresholds. Activation thresholds increased up to ~130% for higher perineurium resistivity (~400 versus 2200 Ω m) and by ~35%-250% for lower longitudinal endoneurial resistivity (3.5 versus 0.75 Ω m), with larger increases for smaller diameter axons and for axons in larger fascicles. Further, thresholds increased by ~30%-180% for larger fascicle radii, yielding a larger increase with higher perineurium resistivity. Thresholds were largely insensitive to the transverse endoneurial resistivity, but estimates of the bulk resistivity increased with extracellular resistivity and axonal area fraction; the numerical and analytical estimates were in strong agreement except at high axonal area fractions, where structured axon placements that achieved tighter packing produced electric field inhomogeneities. SIGNIFICANCE: We performed a systematic investigation of the effects of values and methods for modeling the perineurium and endoneurium on thresholds for neural stimulation and block. These results provide guidance for future modeling studies, including parameter selection, data interpretation, and comparison to experimental results.

Indexed as

Finite Element AnalysisModels, NeurologicalHumansPeripheral NervesVagus Nerve

Identifiers

PMID30507555
PMCPMC7309635

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.