Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32235815›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2020

Discrepancies of Measured SAR between Traditional and Fast Measuring Systems.

Zicheng Liu, Djamel Allal, Maurice Cox, Joe Wiart

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Comment on Liu et al. "Discrepancies of Measured SAR between Traditional and Fast Measuring Systems."International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Zicheng LiuChaire C2M, LTCI, Télécom Paris, 91120 Palaiseau, France.ORCID 0000-0002-3118-9876
Djamel AllalLaboratoire National de Métrologie et d'Essais, 78197 Trappes, France.
Maurice CoxNational Physical Laboratory, Teddington TW11 0LW, UK.
Joe WiartChaire C2M, LTCI, Télécom Paris, 91120 Palaiseau, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Human exposure to mobile devices is traditionally measured by a system in which the human body (or head) is modelled by a phantom and the energy absorbed from the device is estimated based on the electric fields measured with a single probe. Such a system suffers from low efficiency due to repeated volumetric scanning within the phantom needed to capture the absorbed energy throughout the volume. To speed up the measurement, fast SAR (specific absorption rate) measuring systems have been developed. However, discrepancies of measured results are observed between traditional and fast measuring systems. In this paper, the discrepancies in terms of post-processing procedures after the measurement of electric field (or its amplitude) are investigated. Here, the concerned fast measuring system estimates SAR based on the reconstructed field of the region of interest while the amplitude and phase of the electric field are measured on a single plane with a probe array. The numerical results presented indicate that the fast SAR measuring system has the potential to yield more accurate estimations than the traditional system, but no conclusion can be made on which kind of system is superior without knowledge of the field-reconstruction algorithms and the emitting source.

Indexed as

Electromagnetic FieldsHeadAlgorithmsCell PhoneElectricityHumansPhantoms, Imagingfast SAR measurementfield reconstructionmeasurement discrepancyplane-wave expansionspecific absorption ratetraditional SAR measurementuncertainty analysis

Identifiers

PMID32235815
PMCPMC7143529

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.