Electrical Properties of Human Tissues and Cells: From Membrane Potential to Systemic Electrophysiology

Version 1.9 (25 September 2026) — two corrections, both about other documents rather than about this one's science. First, this manuscript said twice that its companion framework paper was unpublished. Section 1.2 and the Related work declaration both stated that the companion manuscript — Bioelectrical Parameters of Living Systems: A Scientific Framework for Understanding Voltage, Current, Frequency and Biological Function — was unpublished and carried no identifier. It was published on 22 September 2026 under Zenodo concept DOI 10.5281/zenodo.22829923. Both sentences were true when written and false by the end of the day of that deposit, and neither was updated. Both now cite the companion by its concept DOI. Second, the related-work disclosure named one related deposit where there are five. It now lists all five of the author's deposited works on adjacent subject matter, each by concept DOI, together with two further public deposits that are disclosed and deliberately not cited — a manufacturer-published educational article and a patent register. One of the five, a PRISMA-ScR scoping review of reported stimulation parameters, discusses the author's own granted patent family as a documentary example; the declaration says so explicitly rather than leaving it to be discovered by following a citation. No value, table entry, figure, reference, grading or conclusion changes. A whitespace-normalised diff of version 1.8 against version 1.9 yields 37 changed lines arising from four removed lines; every numeral in the removed text is present in the added text, and no reference entry or numeric table row is touched. The figures were regenerated at a minimum type size of 8.1 pt so that they clear an 8 pt floor once placed; no plotted value changed, and the figure is checked against its table mechanically. The change log is §11.14. The scientific gate is unchanged at YELLOW. Version 1.8 (22 September 2026). Eight corrections. No value, table entry, evidence grading or conclusion changes. What changes is what the manuscript says about its own completeness, one figure, one fraction, and one description of an earlier edit. Version 1.7 closed this manuscript’s last evidence gap and left four places still saying it was open. The 95% confidence intervals of [B06] went into Table 2; the abstract, the paragraph printed directly beneath that table, and the caption of Figure 3 all continued to state that the intervals could not be obtained — and Figure 3 itself was still drawn without them. For a review whose argument is that parameters are quoted without the uncertainty that attached to them at measurement, a figure omitting uncertainty its own manuscript was holding is the failure the review exists to warn against. Figure 3 is redrawn from the Table 2 rows: nine rows, each with its 95% confidence interval; cortical and cancellous tibia drawn separately because the source reports them separately and they differ by a factor of 38; and the source’s further row labelled simply “bone” (124 × 106 Ω·cm, four decades off scale) given in the note rather than plotted. A check now fails if the figure’s values and Table 2 ever diverge. A finding came out of the repair. With the intervals drawn, the six soft-tissue rows whose means the source’s analysis of covariance declines to distinguish are seen not all to overlap: eight of the fifteen pairs are disjoint, separating lung, skeletal muscle, cardiac muscle and kidney from liver and spleen. This is not a contradiction — marginal intervals are not a hypothesis test, a covariate-adjusted ANCOVA may legitimately differ, and the source reports both without reconciling them. But this review’s standing complaint is that the ANCOVA finding is dropped whenever that table is cited, and quoting it while suppressing what the intervals show would be the same error reversed. It is now in §5.2 and on the figure. It was invisible for as long as the figure had no error bars. The redundant-publication declaration’s denominator was stale. “36 of this paper’s 44 cited sources (82%)” was exact at version 1.6; two references were added at version 1.7 and the denominator was not recomputed. It is 36 of 46 (78%). The companion manuscript cites neither new reference, so the numerator is unchanged. Both figures are now re-measured from the two reference lists by script rather than by intention: a quantified disclosure carries a maintenance obligation that a vague one does not. One earlier change log described an edit it had not made. Version 1.6’s bone row read “> 17,583 Ω·cm”, a lower bound; version 1.7 rewrote it as 17,583 Ω·cm with a 95% CI of 12,289–25,157, a mean with an interval, and recorded only the relabelling. The digits did not change and the assertion did. The rewrite is correct — the “greater than” was this review’s own unsourced artefact, carried since version 1.0 — and the description of it was not. The check that should have caught these could not see the section they were recorded in. Version 1.7 carried its largest change log after the reference list, and the pre-submission checker reads only the text preceding it. Four universal self-claims in that section were never surfaced, and version 1.7 passed with no failures over a manuscript one whole section of which the checker had not read. Those sections are moved to their numeric place, and the checker now fails any manuscript carrying a heading after the references. A passing check must state what it read.