ArticleMagnetic resonance in medicine2026
Electromagnetic and Electrophysiological Modeling of Cardiac Stimulation Thresholds in 13 MRI Gradient Systems and 56 Body Models.
Article in Magnetic resonance in medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThe MRI safety standard IEC 60601-2-33 limits the maximum dB/dt and E-field induced by MRI gradients to protect patients from cardiac stimulation (CS). Those limits were set in the early 2000s based on a compilation of electrode stimulation measurements in animals as well as electromagnetic calculations in a homogeneous ellipsoid. We re-evaluate CS in MRI using state-of-the-art electromagnetic and electrophysiological modeling in realistic body models and gradient coils.
methodsWe predicted CS thresholds in 56 realistic body models and 13 commercial gradient systems for trapezoidal waveforms with rise times (the time during which the gradient amplitude is ramped from zero to maximum) ranging from 0.1 to 5.0 ms. We used threshold predictions in individual body models to estimate the gradient field amplitude below which the probability of occurrence of a CS adverse event is < 2 ppb, the historically agreed upon probability used in IEC 60601-2-33.
resultsWe found that the variability of CS thresholds due to differences in anatomy and body habitus was 10%-36%, depending on rise time, while the CS threshold variability across gradient coils was 27%. In the range of typically used MRI rise times (≤ 2.5 ms), the predicted gradient amplitude associated with a CS probability of 2 ppb is > 5.5X higher than the IEC CS limit.
conclusionDetailed simulations in a large population of realistic body models and gradient coils indicate that the IEC CS limit is substantially lower (more conservative) than the predicted gradient amplitude associated with a 2-ppb probability for CS.
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.