Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 54 references

Patient body size, not which simulation software you pick, drives the uncertainty in MRI heating safety limits for implants.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

T0 review · grok-4.5

2026-07-12 06:51 UTC pith:HXRACPVE

load-bearing objection Solid Tier-3 head-to-head: habitus (BMI) outranks solver class and dielectric sweeps for DBS B1+ limits at 1.5 T; trajectory adaptation is a real but secondary soft spot, not a collapse of the claim. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.02816 v1 pith:HXRACPVE submitted 2026-07-02 physics.med-ph

Body Habitus Dominates Solver Choice as a Source of Uncertainty in MRI Safety Assessment of Active Implantable Medical Devices

Safa Hameed , Fuchang Jiang , Bhumi Bhusal , Sana Ullah , Pia Sanpitak , Laleh Golestanirad This is my paper
classification physics.med-ph
keywords MRI safetyRF-induced heatingactive implantable medical devicesdeep brain stimulationISO/TS 10974transfer functionanthropometric variabilitybody habitus
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

Safety labels that decide whether patients with deep brain stimulators and similar implants can enter an MRI scanner rest on computational predictions of radiofrequency heating. Those predictions have usually been run with one solver family and one or two standard-BMI body models, so it has been unclear whether the software choice, the assumed tissue properties, or the patient's anatomy contributes most to the uncertainty. This paper runs the full ISO Tier 3 transfer-function workflow on both an FDTD solver and an FEM solver for a deep-brain-stimulation system at 1.5 T, then repeats the calculation across more than 250 realistic lead trajectories in standard, elderly, and elevated-BMI male and female models. In ordinary body shapes the two solvers give nearly the same safe B1+ limits (about 2.6–3.0 µT). Raising BMI, however, cuts those limits by 19–31 % in both sexes, while age and sex at matched BMI do not. Simple geometric scaling of a standard model recovers the obese limit; sweeping tissue dielectric constants by ±50 % does not. The authors therefore conclude that body habitus is the dominant uncertainty source and that safety assessments must treat elevated-BMI anatomies as a primary variable.

Core claim

Body habitus dominates solver choice, dielectric assumptions, and sex as the source of predictive uncertainty in ISO/TS 10974 Tier 3 MRI safety assessment of elongated-lead implants. FDTD and FEM implementations produce equivalent Maximum Allowable B1+ limits near 2.6–3.0 µT in standard anatomies, whereas elevated-BMI models of both sexes lower those limits by 19–31 %; geometric morphing reproduces the obese limit while dielectric sweeps do not.

What carries the argument

The Maximum Allowable B1+ limit: the largest B1+ such that the 95th-percentile temperature rise across clinically realistic trajectories stays ≤2 °C, obtained by quadratically rescaling the transfer-function heating distribution measured at a reference exposure of 4.9 µT.

Load-bearing premise

The ranking of risk sources rests on 95th-percentile heating values estimated from only fifty adapted trajectories per body model, a sample that the paper itself notes leaves the upper-tail confidence intervals imprecise.

What would settle it

Repeat the full Tier 3 workflow with several hundred independent trajectories drawn from native high-BMI patient imaging for both sexes; if the BMI-driven reduction in Maximum Allowable B1+ shrinks below the solver-to-solver difference, the dominance claim fails.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports a cross-platform ISO/TS 10974 Tier 3 evaluation of RF-induced heating for a DBS system at 1.5 T, comparing FDTD (Sim4Life) and FEM (ANSYS HFSS) across phantom fields, transfer-function (TF) validation, and in vivo assessments in standard and diverse anatomies (Duke, HBM, Glenn, Fats, Ella, Ella BMI 30; >250 trajectories). The central claim is that body habitus (elevated BMI) is the dominant source of predictive uncertainty, exceeding solver choice, dielectric-property assumptions, and sex: FDTD and FEM Maximum Allowable B1+ limits converge near 2.6–3.0 µT in standard models, while elevated BMI reduces safe B1+ by 19–31% in both sexes; geometric morphing approximates the obese limit, whereas dielectric sweeps do not.

Significance. If the ranking holds, the work has clear regulatory and practical impact: it argues that Tier 3 labeling resources should prioritize anthropometric diversity (including elevated-BMI female models or validated morphing surrogates) over exhaustive dielectric sweeps or solver-class debates. Strengths include a like-for-like FDTD–FEM comparison through the full TF workflow, pre-specified TOST equivalence margins derived from measured experimental uncertainty (±2.56 °C), bootstrap CIs on p95 and B1+ limits, independent phantom heating validation (R≥0.90), cross-sex BMI corroboration, and an explicit commitment to share analysis code, trajectory geometries, and solver-agnostic intermediate fields. These elements make the study more auditable than typical AIMD heating papers.

major comments (3)
  1. [Methods II-D.3; Results III-E–F; Limitations] Methods II-D.3 and Results III-E–F: the dominance ranking (habitus ≫ solver/dielectric/sex) rests on p95(ΔT) and Maximum Allowable B1+ from n=50 “matched” full-system trajectories that are CAD-adapted per anatomy so cranial entry, extracranial routing, and IPG pocket remain “anatomically valid,” with only “minor adjustments.” Because Eq. (1) is highly sensitive to extracranial path geometry relative to Etan (Introduction; also the paper’s own lead-routing literature), systematic re-routing forced by larger torso/shoulder dimensions in Fats or Ella BMI 30 can elevate the heating tail even if bulk habitus were fixed. The Limitations section notes “minor geometric variation” but does not quantify how much of the 19–31% B1+ reduction survives when identical centerlines are rigidly embedded (or only isometrically scaled) into each model. Strategy B (morphing) recovers the obese p95 but still
  2. [Methods II-F.1; Limitations; Results III-C–F] Methods II-F.1 and Limitations: p95 and derived Maximum Allowable B1+ are estimated from n=50 trajectories per model. The paper correctly notes that this limits bootstrap CI precision, especially under the nonlinear B1+–ΔT map used in Eq. (4). The reported 19–31% BMI-driven reductions and the solver/sex equivalence conclusions are therefore tail-sensitive. Either enlarge the trajectory sets for the key phenotype contrasts (Duke/Fats, Ella/Ella BMI 30, Duke/HBM) or report a sensitivity analysis (e.g., leave-k-out or progressive subsample stability of p95 and B1+) so readers can judge whether the quantitative ranking is robust to upper-tail sampling.
  3. [Results III-B; Methods II-C.4; Section II-F] Results III-B and II-C.4: TF predictions show strong correlation with measurements (R≥0.90) but absolute RMSE of ~5.5–6.0 °C, while the clinical endpoint is p95(ΔT)≤2 °C and the TOST margin is ±2.56 °C. Probe-offset sensitivity alone spans 16.2 °C. The ranking and equivalence claims are relative and may still hold, but the manuscript should more explicitly separate (i) relative cross-solver/phenotype ranking from (ii) absolute accuracy of Maximum Allowable B1+ as a labeling number, and state how experimental uncertainty propagates into the reported µT limits (beyond the ΔT margin already used for TOST).
minor comments (6)
  1. [Table I] Table I lists HBM age/BMI as “–”; if approximate values are known from the ANSYS library documentation, stating them would help readers compare HBM to Duke (BMI 22.4) when interpreting the small B1+ offset in Fig. 5.
  2. [Fig. 2; Methods II-A.3] Fig. 2 summary table and MAPD definitions are clear; consider adding the phantom-only mask boundary on the field maps so readers can see the evaluation domain used for MAPD.
  3. [Methods II-C.1] Eq. (1)–(2): state units and whether TF is normalized (e.g., per unit length) so that C is unambiguously dimensioned; Supplementary Fig. S2 is referenced but the main text could note the TF magnitude scale briefly.
  4. [Abstract; Results III-D] The abstract and Conclusion state “sex at matched BMI had no significant effect” and TOST equivalence; also report the Wilcoxon p-value and TOST CI already in Results III-D in the abstract-level summary for balance with the BMI percentages.
  5. [Title; Abstract] Minor wording: “Body Habitus Dominates Solver Choice as a Source of Uncertainty” is slightly ambiguous (habitus dominates solver choice, or habitus is the dominant source among listed factors). The abstract’s final sentence is clearer; align the title phrasing if space allows.
  6. [References] References [18]–[19] and FDA AccessData access dates are fine; ensure arXiv/version consistency for the preliminary abstract [41] once the full paper is finalized.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

No load-bearing circularity: Tier-3 heating limits are empirical cross-solver/cross-anatomy comparisons validated against independent phantom measurements; minor self-citations are background/methods only.

specific steps
  1. self citation load bearing [Methods II-A.2 (FEM convergence); also Introduction/background citations [14]–[17],[28]–[30],[41]–[44]]
    "Convergence was monitored using the maximum change in S-parameters between consecutive adaptive passes (ΔS), following our previously established framework [28]."

    Convergence criteria for HFSS body-model meshes are justified by a prior paper from the same group rather than re-derived here. This is minor and not load-bearing: the main claim (BMI vs solver/dielectric/sex) does not depend on that prior framework, and field/heating results are still checked against phantom measurements and cross-solver agreement. Not elevated beyond score 1.

full rationale

The paper’s central ranking—that body habitus dominates solver choice, dielectric sweeps, and sex—is an empirical comparison of TF-based ΔT distributions and derived Maximum Allowable B1+ across external anatomical libraries (ViP Duke/Glenn/Fats/Ella/Ella BMI 30; ANSYS HBM) and two independent commercial solvers (Sim4Life FDTD, ANSYS HFSS FEM), not a result forced by definition or by a self-citation chain. Phantom B1+/|E| agreement (MAPD <6%), TF predictions vs MRI heating (R≥0.90, held-out trajectories after single mid-range C calibration), and TOST equivalence margins (±2.56°C from measured run-to-run/TF uncertainty) are external benchmarks. Eq. (1)–(4) are the standard ISO/TS 10974 TF and quadratic B1+–ΔT map; applying them to different anatomies does not make the phenotype ranking circular. Geometric morphing scales HBM to Fats external dimensions then tests whether heating tails match—an experimental hypothesis that could have failed (dielectric sweeps did fail). Trajectory adaptation across models is a potential confounder for causal attribution of the BMI effect, but that is a validity concern, not circular derivation. Self-citations supply background on DBS RF heating and a prior convergence framework; they do not force the dominance claim. Score 1 only for non-load-bearing self-citation density in methods/background.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central ranking rests on the ISO Tier 3 TF pipeline (external standard), commercial anatomical libraries and IT'IS dielectrics, a fitted calibration C, a hand-chosen 2 °C safety threshold, morphing scale factors taken from Fats/Duke dimension ratios, and the statistical premise that n=50 trajectories stabilize p95. No new physical entities are postulated; Morphed HBM is a derived mesh, not a new mechanism.

free parameters (5)
  • TF calibration factor C (per solver and device configuration)
    Fitted from one mid-range measured ΔT trajectory via Eq. (2) and applied unchanged to all other trajectories; differs 7.3% (lead-only) and 2.8% (full system) between solvers.
  • Safety temperature threshold 2 °C for p95
    Chosen a priori as a conservative DBS margin (Section II-F.2) and used to invert Maximum Allowable B1+; not derived from the present data.
  • Equivalence margin ΔT_eq = ±2.56 °C (k=2 × σ_combined)
    k=2 specified a priori from experimental uncertainty; defines TOST pass/fail for solver equivalence.
  • Geometric morphing scales Sx=1.175, Sy=1.26, Sz=1.0
    Hand-derived from Fats/Duke width and depth ratios (Section II-E.2) to build the obese surrogate; choice of which dimensions to average is modeling judgment.
  • Reference B1+ = 4.9 µT and 261 s exposure
    Matched to the validation sequence; all p95 values and scalings are relative to this operating point.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption ISO/TS 10974 Clause 8 Tier 3: ΔT = C |∫ TF(x) E_tan(x) dx|² predicts RF heating from incident fields and a device transfer function.
    Entire workflow and in vivo phenotype comparisons rest on this framework (Eq. 1; Introduction and Methods II-C).
  • domain assumption ΔT scales with the square of B1+ (power scaling), so Maximum Allowable B1+ can be inverted from a single reference exposure.
    Eq. (4); used for every safety limit reported.
  • domain assumption IT'IS tissue dielectric properties and harmonized tissue maps between Duke and HBM are adequate for cross-platform comparison.
    Methods II-D.1; dielectric sweeps later show property uncertainty cannot explain BMI effects, but baseline assignments still set absolute fields.
  • domain assumption TF measured in homogeneous saline remains applicable when multiplied by heterogeneous in vivo E_tan along adapted trajectories.
    Standard Tier 3 practice; load-bearing for claiming that model-to-model ΔT differences are anatomical rather than TF-breakdown artifacts.
  • ad hoc to paper Truncating Sim4Life body models at the torso does not materially change full-system TF predictions.
    Justified by a five-trajectory check (E_tan correlation 0.99, mean |ΔT| difference 0.01 °C) but still an approximation used for all ViP runs.
  • ad hoc to paper Linear geometric morphing of outer dimensions (with proportional organ scaling) is a valid surrogate test of habitus-driven loading.
    Strategy B (II-E.2); used to argue geometry dominates dielectrics.

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-grok45 · 24473 in / 3853 out tokens · 42455 ms · 2026-07-12T06:51:14.701571+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

MRI is increasingly critical for patients with active implantable medical devices (AIMDs), yet access depends on safety labeling derived from computational heating predictions under ISO/TS 10974 Tier 3. Published assessments have relied predominantly on a single electromagnetic solver class and one or two standard-BMI reference anatomies, leaving the relative contributions of solver choice, tissue property uncertainty, and patient anatomy to predictive variability uncharacterized within a common workflow. We performed a cross-platform evaluation of finite-difference time-domain (FDTD, Sim4Life) and finite element method (FEM, ANSYS HFSS) implementations of the full Tier 3 workflow for a deep brain stimulation system at 1.5 T, extending the analysis across more than 250 clinically realistic trajectories spanning standard male and female references (Duke, HBM, Ella), an elderly male (Glenn), and elevated-BMI models of both sexes (Fats, Ella BMI 30). FDTD and FEM agreed closely in standard anatomies, with Maximum Allowable B1+ limits converging near 2.6-3.0 uT. The elderly male model produced a comparable limit to Duke, indicating BMI rather than age drives heating variability. Elevated BMI reduced safe B1+ by 19-31% in both sexes, while sex at matched BMI had no significant effect. Geometric morphing approximated the native obese limit, whereas dielectric property sweeps failed to reproduce elevated-BMI heating distributions. Body habitus is the dominant source of predictive uncertainty in Tier 3 assessment, exceeding solver choice, dielectric assumptions, and sex. Anatomical diversity, including elevated-BMI female phenotypes, should be treated as a primary variable.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.02816 by Bhumi Bhusal, Fuchang Jiang, Laleh Golestanirad, Pia Sanpitak, Safa Hameed, Sana Ullah.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Schematic overview of the study design and computa￾tional workflow. Phase I (Solver Comparison) establishes cross-platform equivalence between FDTD (Sim4Life) and FEM (ANSYS HFSS) solvers using a homogeneous phantom and transfer function (TF)- based predictions. Phase II (Quantifying Risk) transitions to in vivo assessments, first confirming equivalence in standard reference models (Duke, HBM), and evaluat… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Cross-platform comparison of simulated electromagnetic fields in a homogeneous phantom at 64 MHz (1.5 T). (a) Configuration of the 16-rung high-pass birdcage body coil loaded with a cylindrical phantom, detailing dimensions and excitation port placement. (b) Central axial and sagittal evaluation planes within the phantom. Simulated (c) B + 1 field [T] and (d) electric field magnitude (|E|) [V/m] distributi… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Evaluated device configurations and anatomical models for in vivo safety assessments. (a) High-resolution computational anatomical models. Voxel-based models evaluated in Sim4Life include the standard adult male (Duke), an elderly male (Glenn), an obese male (Fats), a standard adult female (Ella), and a high-BMI female (Ella BMI 30). Surface-based models evaluated in ANSYS HFSS include the standard Human B… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Cross-platform in vivo equivalence between standard refer￾ence models. Boxplots comparing the distribution of predicted tem￾perature rises (∆T ) across routing trajectories for the (a) lead-only and (b) full-system configurations using the voxel-based Duke model (FDTD/Sim4Life) and the surface-based HBM (FEM/ANSYS HFSS). Both configurations showed no statistically significant difference (n.s., p > 0.05). T… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Transfer function measurements and validation of RF-induced heating. Comparison of measured and computationally predicted tem￾perature rises (∆T ) across 15 distinct lead-only (a) and full system (b) trajectories. Predictions derived from both FDTD (Sim4Life) and FEM (ANSYS HFSS) incident fields demonstrate strong agreement with physical measurements for both the lead-only (R = 0.98 for both solvers) and f… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Impact of anthropometric variability on RF-induced heating. (a) Temperature rise distributions across standard (Duke, HBM), elderly (Glenn), and obese (Fats) anatomical models at the reference B + 1 = 4.9 µT. (b) Derived Maximum Allowable B + 1 limits based on a 2°C threshold. Standard and elderly models yielded comparable safety limits (2.62–3.03 µT). both device configurations ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Evaluation of surrogate strategies and cross-sex corroboration of obese-phenotype risk. (a) Temperature rise distributions for the standard HBM, worst-case dielectric sweep, geometrically Morphed HBM, and native obese model (Fats) at the reference B + 1 = 4.9 µT. (b) Derived Maximum Allowable B + 1 limits based on a 2◦C threshold; the dielectric sweep failed to shift heating beyond the standard HBM range, … view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

54 extracted references

  1. [1]

    Spatial distribution of RF-induced E-fields and implant heating in MRI,

    P. Nordbecket al., “Spatial distribution of RF-induced E-fields and implant heating in MRI,”Magnetic Resonance in Medicine, vol. 60, no. 2, pp. 312–319, 2008

    2008

  2. [2]

    Measurements and simulation of RF heating of implanted stereo- electroencephalography electrodes during MR scans,

    B. Bhusal, P. Bhattacharyya, T. Baig, S. Jones, and M. Martens, “Measurements and simulation of RF heating of implanted stereo- electroencephalography electrodes during MR scans,”Magnetic Reso- nance in Medicine, vol. 80, no. 4, pp. 1676–1685, 2018

    2018

  3. [3]

    RF-induced heating of capped and uncapped abandoned epicardial leads during MRI at 1.5 T and 3 T,

    F. Jianget al., “RF-induced heating of capped and uncapped abandoned epicardial leads during MRI at 1.5 T and 3 T,” inProceedings of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Conference (EMBC), Jul. 2023, pp. 1–5

    2023

  4. [4]

    RF- induced heating near active implanted medical devices in MRI: Impact of tissue simulating medium,

    J. E. Brown, P. J. Stadnik, J. A. V on Arx, and D. Muessig, “RF- induced heating near active implanted medical devices in MRI: Impact of tissue simulating medium,” inBrain and Human Body Modelling

  5. [5]

    Springer, 2023, pp. 125–132

    2023

  6. [6]

    Patient-specific RF safety assessment in MRI: Progress in creating surface-based human head and shoulder models,

    M. Kozlovet al., “Patient-specific RF safety assessment in MRI: Progress in creating surface-based human head and shoulder models,” inBrain and Human Body Modeling. Springer, 2019, pp. 245–282

    2019

  7. [7]

    Age matters: A comparative study of RF heating of epicardial and endocardial electronic devices in pediatric and adult phantoms during cardiothoracic MRI,

    F. Jianget al., “Age matters: A comparative study of RF heating of epicardial and endocardial electronic devices in pediatric and adult phantoms during cardiothoracic MRI,”Diagnostics, vol. 13, no. 18, p. 2847, 2023

    2023

  8. [8]

    Current clinical issues for MRI scanning of pacemaker and defibrillator patients,

    R. Kalin and M. S. Stanton, “Current clinical issues for MRI scanning of pacemaker and defibrillator patients,”Pacing and Clinical Electro- physiology, vol. 28, no. 4, pp. 326–328, Apr. 2005

    2005

  9. [9]

    Necessity of magnetic resonance imaging examina- tions after permanent pacemaker implantation,

    A. Taruyaet al., “Necessity of magnetic resonance imaging examina- tions after permanent pacemaker implantation,”International Journal of Cardiology, vol. 184, pp. 497–498, Apr. 2015

    2015

  10. [10]

    Changes in the specific absorption rate (SAR) of radiofrequency energy in patients with retained cardiac leads during MRI at 1.5T and 3T,

    L. Golestaniradet al., “Changes in the specific absorption rate (SAR) of radiofrequency energy in patients with retained cardiac leads during MRI at 1.5T and 3T,”Magnetic Resonance in Medicine, vol. 81, no. 1, pp. 653–669, 2019

    2019

  11. [11]

    Safety of MRI in patients with retained cardiac leads,

    B. T. Nguyenet al., “Safety of MRI in patients with retained cardiac leads,”Magnetic Resonance in Medicine, vol. 87, no. 5, pp. 2464–2480, 2022

    2022

  12. [12]

    The rate of magnetic resonance imaging in patients with deep brain stimulation,

    S. Falowski, Y . Safriel, M. P. Ryan, and L. Hargens, “The rate of magnetic resonance imaging in patients with deep brain stimulation,” Stereotactic and Functional Neurosurgery, vol. 94, no. 3, pp. 147–153, Jun. 2016

    2016

  13. [13]

    Improving safety of MRI in patients with deep brain stimulation devices,

    A. Boutetet al., “Improving safety of MRI in patients with deep brain stimulation devices,”Radiology, vol. 296, no. 2, pp. 250–262, Aug. 2020

    2020

  14. [14]

    Cumulative radiation dose from medical imaging in paediatric congenital heart disease patients with epicardial cardiac implantable electronic devices,

    O. B. Aboyewaet al., “Cumulative radiation dose from medical imaging in paediatric congenital heart disease patients with epicardial cardiac implantable electronic devices,”European Heart Journal – Imaging Methods and Practice, vol. 2, no. 1, p. qyae060, Jun. 2024. HAMEEDet al.: BODY HABITUS DOMINATES SOLVER CHOICE IN MRI SAFETY ASSESSMENT OF AIMDS 11

    2024

  15. [15]

    RF-induced heating in tissue near bilateral DBS implants during MRI at 1.5 T and 3T: The role of surgical lead management,

    L. Golestaniradet al., “RF-induced heating in tissue near bilateral DBS implants during MRI at 1.5 T and 3T: The role of surgical lead management,”NeuroImage, vol. 184, pp. 566–576, 2019

    2019

  16. [16]

    Effect of surgical modification of deep brain stimulation lead trajectories on radiofrequency heating during MRI at 3T: from phan- tom experiments to clinical implementation,

    J. Vuet al., “Effect of surgical modification of deep brain stimulation lead trajectories on radiofrequency heating during MRI at 3T: from phan- tom experiments to clinical implementation,”Journal of Neurosurgery, vol. 140, pp. 1459–1470, 2024

    2024

  17. [17]

    Machine learning-based prediction of MRI-induced power ab- sorption in the tissue in patients with simplified deep brain stimulation lead models,

    ——, “Machine learning-based prediction of MRI-induced power ab- sorption in the tissue in patients with simplified deep brain stimulation lead models,”IEEE Transactions on Electromagnetic Compatibility, vol. 63, pp. 1757–1766, 2021

    2021

  18. [18]

    Application of machine learning to predict RF heating of cardiac leads during magnetic resonance imaging at 1.5 T and 3 T: A simulation study,

    X. Chenet al., “Application of machine learning to predict RF heating of cardiac leads during magnetic resonance imaging at 1.5 T and 3 T: A simulation study,”Journal of Magnetic Resonance, vol. 349, p. 107384, 2023

    2023

  19. [19]

    ISO/TS 10974:2018. assessment of the safety of magnetic resonance imaging for patients with an active implantable medical device,

    International Organization for Standardization, “ISO/TS 10974:2018. assessment of the safety of magnetic resonance imaging for patients with an active implantable medical device,” Technical Specification, 2018

    2018

  20. [20]

    U.S. Food and Drug Administration, “Recognized consensus standards: Medical devices—ISO TS 10974 second edition 2018, Assessment of the safety of magnetic resonance imaging for patients with an active implantable medical device,” FDA AccessData, page last updated Dec. 22, 2025. Accessed Feb. 23, 2026

    2018

  21. [21]

    Calculation of MRI-induced heating of an implanted medical lead wire with an electric field transfer function,

    S.-M. Park, R. Kamondetdacha, and J. A. Nyenhuis, “Calculation of MRI-induced heating of an implanted medical lead wire with an electric field transfer function,”Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging, vol. 26, no. 5, pp. 1278–1285, 2007

    2007

  22. [22]

    Developing AIMD models using orthogonal pathways for MRI safety assessment,

    J. Zhenget al., “Developing AIMD models using orthogonal pathways for MRI safety assessment,”IEEE Transactions on Electromagnetic Compatibility, vol. 62, no. 6, pp. 2689–2695, Dec. 2020

    2020

  23. [23]

    A technique to evaluate MRI-induced electric fields at the ends of practical implanted lead,

    S. Feng, R. Qiang, W. Kainz, and J. Chen, “A technique to evaluate MRI-induced electric fields at the ends of practical implanted lead,” IEEE Transactions on Microwave Theory and Techniques, vol. 63, pp. 305–313, Jan. 2015

    2015

  24. [24]

    A combined computational and experimental ap- proach to assess the transfer function of real pacemaker leads for MR radiofrequency-induced heating,

    E. Matteiet al., “A combined computational and experimental ap- proach to assess the transfer function of real pacemaker leads for MR radiofrequency-induced heating,”Magnetic Resonance Materials in Physics, Biology and Medicine, vol. 34, no. 4, pp. 619–630, Aug. 2021

    2021

  25. [25]

    Experimental setup for transfer function measurement to assess RF heating of medical leads in MRI: Validation in the case of a single wire,

    A. Missoffe and S. Aissani, “Experimental setup for transfer function measurement to assess RF heating of medical leads in MRI: Validation in the case of a single wire,”Magnetic Resonance in Medicine, vol. 79, no. 3, pp. 1766–1772, 2018

    2018

  26. [26]

    Translational excitation strategy for scaled transfer function measurement of medical implants,

    T. Longet al., “Translational excitation strategy for scaled transfer function measurement of medical implants,”IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement, vol. 73, pp. 1–10, 2024

    2024

  27. [27]

    A perturbation approach for ultrafast calculation of RF field enhancements near medical implants in MRI,

    P. R. S. Stijnmanet al., “A perturbation approach for ultrafast calculation of RF field enhancements near medical implants in MRI,”Scientific Reports, vol. 12, no. 1, p. 4224, Mar. 2022

    2022

  28. [28]

    An improved method to measure transfer functions using MRI,

    M. A. Eijbersenet al., “An improved method to measure transfer functions using MRI,”Magnetic Resonance in Medicine, vol. 92, no. 5, pp. 2246–2260, 2024

    2024

  29. [29]

    The effect of simula- tion strategies on prediction of power deposition in the tissue around electronic implants during magnetic resonance imaging,

    B. T. Nguyen, J. Pilitsis, and L. Golestanirad, “The effect of simula- tion strategies on prediction of power deposition in the tissue around electronic implants during magnetic resonance imaging,”Physics in Medicine and Biology, vol. 65, no. 18, p. 185007, Sep. 2020

    2020

  30. [30]

    Device configuration and patient’s body composition significantly affect RF heating of deep brain stimulation implants during MRI: An experimental study at 1.5T and 3T,

    B. Bhusalet al., “Device configuration and patient’s body composition significantly affect RF heating of deep brain stimulation implants during MRI: An experimental study at 1.5T and 3T,” inProceedings of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Conference (EMBC), Jul. 2020, pp. 5192–5197

    2020

  31. [31]

    Bhusal, B

    B. Bhusal, B. Keil, J. Rosenow, E. Kazemivalipour, and L. Golestanirad, “Patient’s body composition can significantly affect RF power deposition in the tissue around DBS implants: Ramifications for lead management strategies and MRI field-shaping techniques,”Physics in Medicine and Biology, vol. 66, no. 1, p. 015008, Jan. 2021

    2021

  32. [32]

    Polynomial chaos expansion of SAR and temperature increase variability in 3 T MRI due to stochastic input data,

    O. Bottauscio, U. Zanovello, A. Arduino, and L. Zilberti, “Polynomial chaos expansion of SAR and temperature increase variability in 3 T MRI due to stochastic input data,”Physics in Medicine and Biology, vol. 69, no. 12, p. 125005, Jun. 2024

    2024

  33. [33]

    Temperature- based MRI safety simulations with a limited number of tissues,

    G. Carluccio, C. Akgun, J. T. Vaughan, and C. Collins, “Temperature- based MRI safety simulations with a limited number of tissues,”Mag- netic Resonance in Medicine, vol. 86, no. 1, pp. 543–550, 2021

    2021

  34. [34]

    An exponential growth of computational phantom research in radiation protection, imaging, and radiotherapy: A review of the fifty- year history,

    X. G. Xu, “An exponential growth of computational phantom research in radiation protection, imaging, and radiotherapy: A review of the fifty- year history,”Physics in Medicine and Biology, vol. 59, no. 18, pp. R233–R302, Sep. 2014

    2014

  35. [35]

    IMAnalytics: MRI Safety/Implant Evaluation According to ISO 10974 Industry Standards,

    ZMT Zurich MedTech AG, “IMAnalytics: MRI Safety/Implant Evaluation According to ISO 10974 Industry Standards,” https://sim4life.swiss/imanalytics, 2026, accessed: 2026-06-17

    2026

  36. [36]

    Virtual human models for electromagnetic stud- ies and their applications,

    S. N. Makarovet al., “Virtual human models for electromagnetic stud- ies and their applications,”IEEE Reviews in Biomedical Engineering, vol. 10, pp. 95–121, 2017

    2017

  37. [37]

    Analysis of the local worst-case SAR exposure caused by an MRI multi-transmit body coil in anatomical models of the human body,

    E. Neufeldet al., “Analysis of the local worst-case SAR exposure caused by an MRI multi-transmit body coil in anatomical models of the human body,”Physics in Medicine and Biology, vol. 56, no. 15, p. 4649, Jul. 2011

    2011

  38. [38]

    The virtual family—development of surface-based anatomical models of two adults and two children for dosimetric simulations,

    A. Christet al., “The virtual family—development of surface-based anatomical models of two adults and two children for dosimetric simulations,”Physics in Medicine and Biology, vol. 55, no. 2, pp. N23– N38, Jan. 2010

    2010

  39. [39]

    Development of a new generation of high- resolution anatomical models for medical device evaluation: the virtual population 3.0,

    M.-C. Gosselinet al., “Development of a new generation of high- resolution anatomical models for medical device evaluation: the virtual population 3.0,”Physics in Medicine and Biology, vol. 59, no. 18, p. 5287, Aug. 2014

    2014

  40. [40]

    Extension of RPI-adult male and female computational phantoms to obese patients and a Monte Carlo study of the effect on CT imaging dose,

    A. Dinget al., “Extension of RPI-adult male and female computational phantoms to obese patients and a Monte Carlo study of the effect on CT imaging dose,”Physics in Medicine and Biology, vol. 57, no. 9, pp. 2441–2459, May 2012

    2012

  41. [41]

    Modeling factors affecting SAR distribution in UHF MRI: Mesh density, body scaling, and simplification of the models,

    F. Jabbarigargari, M. Terekhov, and L. Schreiber, “Modeling factors affecting SAR distribution in UHF MRI: Mesh density, body scaling, and simplification of the models,” Presented at the 2025 ISMRM & ISMRT Annual Meeting, Honolulu, HI, USA, 2025, abstract 3961

    2025

  42. [42]

    ISO/TS 10974 compliance in MRI safety: A comparative study of electromagnetic solvers for predicting RF heating in AIMDs,

    S. Hameed, F. Jiang, S. Ullah, and L. Golestanirad, “ISO/TS 10974 compliance in MRI safety: A comparative study of electromagnetic solvers for predicting RF heating in AIMDs,” Proc. Intl. Soc. Mag. Reson. Med., p. 181, 2025, abstract 181

    2025

  43. [43]

    Comparative study of radiofrequency heating in deep brain stimulation devices during MRI at 1.5 T and 0.55 T: Challenging the assumption of safety at low field strengths,

    B. Bhusalet al., “Comparative study of radiofrequency heating in deep brain stimulation devices during MRI at 1.5 T and 0.55 T: Challenging the assumption of safety at low field strengths,”Magnetic Resonance in Medicine, vol. 94, no. 2, pp. 785–796, 2025

    2025

  44. [44]

    Modifying the trajectory of epicardial leads can sub- stantially reduce MRI-induced RF heating in pediatric patients with a cardiac implantable electronic device at 1.5T,

    F. Jianget al., “Modifying the trajectory of epicardial leads can sub- stantially reduce MRI-induced RF heating in pediatric patients with a cardiac implantable electronic device at 1.5T,”Magnetic Resonance in Medicine, vol. 90, no. 6, pp. 2510–2523, 2023

    2023

  45. [45]

    Effect of device configuration and patient’s body composition on the RF heating and nonsusceptibility artifact of deep brain stimulation implants during MRI at 1.5T and 3T,

    B. Bhusalet al., “Effect of device configuration and patient’s body composition on the RF heating and nonsusceptibility artifact of deep brain stimulation implants during MRI at 1.5T and 3T,”Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging, vol. 53, no. 2, pp. 599–610, 2021

    2021

  46. [46]

    Anatomical model uncertainty for RF safety evaluation of metallic implants under MRI exposure,

    A. Yaoet al., “Anatomical model uncertainty for RF safety evaluation of metallic implants under MRI exposure,”Bioelectromagnetics, vol. 40, no. 7, pp. 458–471, 2019

    2019

  47. [47]

    Effects of anatomical differences on electromagnetic fields, SAR, and temperature change,

    L. Alonet al., “Effects of anatomical differences on electromagnetic fields, SAR, and temperature change,”Concepts in Magnetic Resonance Part B, vol. 46, no. 1, pp. 8–18, 2016

    2016

  48. [48]

    RF heating of vagus nerve stimulation devices in low-field (0.55 T) vs high-field (1.5 T) MRI,

    P. P. Sanpitaket al., “RF heating of vagus nerve stimulation devices in low-field (0.55 T) vs high-field (1.5 T) MRI,” in2025 47th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (EMBC), 2025

    2025

  49. [49]

    RF heating of deep brain stimulation implants in open-bore vertical MRI systems: A simulation study with realistic device configurations,

    L. Golestaniradet al., “RF heating of deep brain stimulation implants in open-bore vertical MRI systems: A simulation study with realistic device configurations,”Magnetic Resonance in Medicine, vol. 83, no. 6, pp. 2284–2292, 2020

    2020

  50. [50]

    RF heating of deep brain stimulation implants during MRI in 1.2 T vertical scanners versus 1.5 T horizontal systems: A simulation study with realistic lead configurations,

    E. Kazemivalipouret al., “RF heating of deep brain stimulation implants during MRI in 1.2 T vertical scanners versus 1.5 T horizontal systems: A simulation study with realistic lead configurations,” in2020 42nd Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine & Biology Society (EMBC), 2020, pp. 6143–6146

    2020

  51. [51]

    Investigation of parallel radiofrequency transmission for the reduction of heating in long conductive leads in 3 Tesla magnetic resonance imaging,

    C. E. McElcheranet al., “Investigation of parallel radiofrequency transmission for the reduction of heating in long conductive leads in 3 Tesla magnetic resonance imaging,”PLOS ONE, vol. 10, no. 8, p. e0134379, 2015

    2015

  52. [52]

    Parallel radiofrequency transmission at 3 tesla to improve safety in bilateral implanted wires in a heterogeneous model,

    ——, “Parallel radiofrequency transmission at 3 tesla to improve safety in bilateral implanted wires in a heterogeneous model,”Magnetic Reso- nance in Medicine, vol. 78, no. 6, pp. 2406–2415, 2017

    2017

  53. [53]

    Feasibility of using linearly polarized rotating birdcage transmitters and close-fitting receive arrays in MRI to reduce SAR in the vicinity of deep brain simulation implants,

    L. Golestaniradet al., “Feasibility of using linearly polarized rotating birdcage transmitters and close-fitting receive arrays in MRI to reduce SAR in the vicinity of deep brain simulation implants,”Magnetic Resonance in Medicine, vol. 77, no. 4, pp. 1701–1712, 2017

    2017

  54. [54]

    A deep brain stimulation-conditioned RF coil for 3T MRI,

    N. Kutschaet al., “A deep brain stimulation-conditioned RF coil for 3T MRI,”Magnetic Resonance in Medicine, vol. 93, no. 3, pp. 1411–1426, 2025

    2025