The Fourth Dorsal Interosseus Pedis Muscle: A Useful Muscle in Routine Electromyography
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of the study was to assess the utility of needle examination of the fourth dorsal interosseus pedis (FDIP) muscle in routine EMG. FDIP is an easily accessible muscle and may be less prone to blunt trauma as compared with the other foot muscles but despite its potential utility in electrophysiology, little if any data are available on the FDIP muscle. Detailed neurologic examination, nerve conduction, and needle EMG studies were performed in 118 individuals referred to the EMG laboratory of a tertiary referral center. The FDIP was studied by inserting a needle obliquely at an angle of about 30 degrees immediately proximal to the fourth and fifth metatarsal heads. In 44 subjects (patients/volunteers) with normal studies, <5% had increased insertional activity (IA) in the FDIP, but none had sustained spontaneous activity (SA). Among 32 patients with mixed sensorimotor polyneuropathy, FDIP showed abnormal SA in >90%. In patients with S1 root compromise, 66% had sustained SA in FDIP but none with involvement of L3, L4, or L5 nerve root alone. Two of the four patients with tibial and one of five with peroneal neuropathies had increased SA in this muscle; none with other lower limb focal neuropathies. In patients with lumbosacral plexopathy, FDIP showed denervation potentials with diffuse plexus involvement but not with upper plexopathy. Almost all patients tolerated the FDIP needle examination well. End plates were frequently encountered in the FDIP muscle. We concluded that in normal feet, the FDIP muscle has a low incidence of sustained SA. Abnormal SA in FDIP correlates well with the overall neurologic condition, and it may be a useful muscle to include in routine electrodiagnostic evaluation.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".