Masticatory muscle sleep background electromyographic activity is elevated in myofascial temporomandibular disorder patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite theoretical speculation and strong clinical belief, recent research using laboratory polysomnographic (PSG) recording has provided new evidence that frequency of sleep bruxism (SB) masseter muscle events, including grinding or clenching of the teeth during sleep, is not increased for women with chronic myofascial temporomandibular disorder (TMD). The current case-control study compares a large sample of women suffering from chronic myofascial TMD (n = 124) with a demographically matched control group without TMD (n = 46) on sleep background electromyography (EMG) during a laboratory PSG study. Background EMG activity was measured as EMG root mean square (RMS) from the right masseter muscle after lights out. Sleep background EMG activity was defined as EMG RMS remaining after activity attributable to SB, other orofacial activity, other oromotor activity and movement artefacts were removed. Results indicated that median background EMG during these non-SB event periods was significantly higher (P < 0·01) for women with myofascial TMD (median = 3·31 μV and mean = 4·98 μV) than for control women (median = 2·83 μV and mean = 3·88 μV) with median activity in 72% of cases exceeding control activity. Moreover, for TMD cases, background EMG was positively associated and SB event-related EMG was negatively associated with pain intensity ratings (0-10 numerical scale) on post-sleep waking. These data provide the foundation for a new focus on small, but persistent, elevations in sleep EMG activity over the course of the night as a mechanism of pain induction or maintenance.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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".