These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

107 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 36996847)

  • 1. Uncertainty quantification in the assessment of human exposure to pulsed or multi-frequency fields.
    Giaccone L
    Phys Med Biol; 2023 Apr; 68(9):. PubMed ID: 36996847
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Benchmark of different assessment methods for non-sinusoidal magnetic field exposure in the context of European Directive 2013/35/EU.
    Schmid G; Hirtl R; Samaras T
    J Radiol Prot; 2019 Apr; 39(2):455-469. PubMed ID: 30794996
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. A fast tool for the parametric analysis of human body exposed to LF electromagnetic fields in biomedical applications.
    Torchio R; Arduino A; Zilberti L; Bottauscio O
    Comput Methods Programs Biomed; 2022 Feb; 214():106543. PubMed ID: 34861616
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Influence of tissue conductivity on foetal exposure to extremely low frequency magnetic fields at 50 Hz using stochastic dosimetry.
    Fiocchi S; Chiaramello E; Parazzini M; Ravazzani P
    PLoS One; 2018; 13(2):e0192131. PubMed ID: 29415005
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Neuroelectric mechanisms applied to low frequency electric and magnetic field exposure guidelines--part II: non sinusoidal waveforms.
    Reilly JP; Diamant AM
    Health Phys; 2002 Sep; 83(3):356-65. PubMed ID: 12199549
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. A principled approach to conductivity uncertainty analysis in electric field calculations.
    Saturnino GB; Thielscher A; Madsen KH; Knösche TR; Weise K
    Neuroimage; 2019 Mar; 188():821-834. PubMed ID: 30594684
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Analysis of human brain exposure to low-frequency magnetic fields: a numerical assessment of spatially averaged electric fields and exposure limits.
    Chen XL; Benkler S; Chavannes N; De Santis V; Bakker J; van Rhoon G; Mosig J; Kuster N
    Bioelectromagnetics; 2013 Jul; 34(5):375-84. PubMed ID: 23404214
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Folic acid supplementation and malaria susceptibility and severity among people taking antifolate antimalarial drugs in endemic areas.
    Crider K; Williams J; Qi YP; Gutman J; Yeung L; Mai C; Finkelstain J; Mehta S; Pons-Duran C; Menéndez C; Moraleda C; Rogers L; Daniels K; Green P
    Cochrane Database Syst Rev; 2022 Feb; 2(2022):. PubMed ID: 36321557
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Assessment of non-sinusoidal, pulsed, or intermittent exposure to low frequency electric and magnetic fields.
    Heinrich H
    Health Phys; 2007 Jun; 92(6):541-6. PubMed ID: 17495654
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Study of the influence of the orientation of a 50-Hz magnetic field on fetal exposure using polynomial chaos decomposition.
    Liorni I; Parazzini M; Fiocchi S; Ravazzani P
    Int J Environ Res Public Health; 2015 May; 12(6):5934-53. PubMed ID: 26024363
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Uncertainty quantification of a mathematical model of COVID-19 transmission dynamics with mass vaccination strategy.
    Olivares A; Staffetti E
    Chaos Solitons Fractals; 2021 May; 146():110895. PubMed ID: 33814733
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Factors influencing uncertainty in measurement of electric fields close to the body in personal RF dosimetry.
    Iskra S; McKenzie R; Cosic I
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2010 Jun; 140(1):25-33. PubMed ID: 20123893
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Nonsinusoidal
    Schneeweiss P; Hirtl R; Schmid G
    J Radiol Prot; 2023 Feb; 43(1):. PubMed ID: 36745918
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. On the uncertainty estimation of electromagnetic field measurements using field sensors: a general approach.
    Stratakis D; Miaoudakis A; Katsidis C; Zacharopoulos V; Xenos T
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2009 Feb; 133(4):240-7. PubMed ID: 19342449
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Retrospective estimation of the electric and magnetic field exposure conditions in in vitro experimental reports reveal considerable potential for uncertainty.
    Portelli LA; Falldorf K; Thuróczy G; Cuppen J
    Bioelectromagnetics; 2018 Apr; 39(3):231-243. PubMed ID: 29171034
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Dealing with uncertainty in formulating occupational and public exposure limits.
    Bailey WH
    Health Phys; 2002 Sep; 83(3):402-8. PubMed ID: 12199554
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Impact of input data uncertainty on environmental exposure assessment models: A case study for electromagnetic field modelling from mobile phone base stations.
    Beekhuizen J; Heuvelink GB; Huss A; Bürgi A; Kromhout H; Vermeulen R
    Environ Res; 2014 Nov; 135():148-55. PubMed ID: 25262088
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Generalized polynomial chaos-based uncertainty quantification and propagation in multi-scale modeling of cardiac electrophysiology.
    Hu Z; Du D; Du Y
    Comput Biol Med; 2018 Nov; 102():57-74. PubMed ID: 30248513
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Evaluation of uncertainty in the measurement of environmental electromagnetic fields.
    Vulević B; Osmokrović P
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2010 Sep; 141(2):173-7. PubMed ID: 20511401
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Assessment of combined exposure to intermediate-frequency electromagnetic fields and pulsed electromagnetic fields among library workers in Japan.
    Yamaguchi-Sekino S; Taki M; Ikuyo M; Esaki K; Aimoto A; Wake K; Kojimahara N
    Front Public Health; 2022; 10():870784. PubMed ID: 35968480
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.