Suction‐modified Bergström muscle biopsy technique: Experience with 13,500 procedures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Bergström needle muscle biopsies have been used by exercise physiologists for over 35 years but have been less accepted by neuromuscular clinicians due to size concerns. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed over 13,500 muscle Bergström needle biopsies done over a 21-year period to determine sampling success, patient/subject experience, and complications. We compared sample yield between two different needles (Bergström vs. UCH), with and without suction modifications. RESULTS: Needle biopsies adequate for histology and enzymology were obtainable from the vastus lateralis, deltoid, biceps brachii, soleus, and medial gastrocnemius muscles, with a success rate of >99.9% and a minor complication rate of 0.15%. Approximately 450 muscle fibers were submitted for histologic assessment; suction modification and use of the Bergström vs. UCH needle were associated with larger sample size (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The suction-modified Bergström needle muscle biopsy technique is safe and provides an adequate sample size for histologic, ultrastructural, DNA, and enzyme analysis.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".