ArticleIEEE transactions on bio-medical engineering2024
Estimations of Charge Deposition Onto Convoluted Axon Surfaces Within Extracellular Electric Fields.
Article in IEEE transactions on bio-medical engineering, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Statistical method accounts for microscopic electric field distortions around neurons when simulating activation thresholds.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
- A survey on integral equations for bioelectric modeling.Physics in medicine and biology · 2024Review
- Enabling electric field model of microscopically realistic brain.Brain stimulationArticle
- Statistical method accounts for microscopic electric field distortions around neurons when simulating activation thresholds.Brain stimulationArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveBiophysical models of neural stimulation are a valuable approach to explaining the mechanisms of neuronal recruitment via applied extracellular electric fields. Typically, the applied electric field is estimated via a macroscopic finite element method solution and then applied to cable models as an extracellular voltage source. However, the field resolution is limited by the finite element size (typically 10's-100's of times greater than average neuronal cross-section). As a result, induced charges deposited onto anatomically realistic curved membrane interfaces are not taken into consideration. However, these details may alter estimates of the applied electric field and predictions of neural tissue activation.
methodsTo estimate microscopic variations of the electric field, data for intra-axonal space segmented from 3D scanning electron microscopy of the mouse brain genu of corpus callosum were used. The boundary element fast multipole method was applied to accurately compute the extracellular solution. Neuronal recruitment was then estimated via an activating function.
resultsTaking the physical structure of the arbor into account generally predicts higher values of the activating function. The relative integral 2-norm difference is 90% on average when the entire axonal arbor is present. A large fraction of this difference might be due to the axonal body itself. When an isolated physical axon is considered with all other axons removed, the relative integral 2-norm difference between the single-axon solution and the complete solution is 25% on average.
conclusionOur result may provide an explanation as to why Deep Brain Stimulation experiments typically predict lower activation thresholds than commonly used FEM/Cable model approaches to predicting neuronal responses to extracellular electrical stimulation. SIGNIFICANCE: These results may change methods for bi-domain neural modeling and neural excitation.
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.