Motor unit number estimation: A technology and literature review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Numerous methods for motor unit number estimation (MUNE) have been developed. The objective of this article is to summarize and compare the major methods and the available data regarding their reproducibility, validity, application, refinement, and utility. METHODS: Using specified search criteria, a systematic review of the literature was performed. Reproducibility, normative data, application to specific diseases and conditions, technical refinements, and practicality were compiled into a comprehensive database and analyzed. RESULTS: The most commonly reported MUNE methods are the incremental, multiple-point stimulation, spike-triggered averaging, and statistical methods. All have established normative data sets and high reproducibility. MUNE provides quantitative assessments of motor neuron loss and has been applied successfully to the study of many clinical conditions, including amyotrophic lateral sclerosis and normal aging. CONCLUSIONS: MUNE is an important research technique in human subjects, providing important data regarding motor unit populations and motor unit loss over time.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it