Electromyography of scoliotic patients treated with a brace
Bibliographic record
Abstract
When a brace is used to correct spinal deviation, patients may seek to ease the discomfort from the pressure exerted by the orthosis by actively recruiting specific trunk muscles. The effect of bracing on trunk electromyography (EMG) has been reported in only one study where a limited number of electrodes were placed mainly in the thoracic region. Our hypothesis was that a multi-electrode mapping of the activity of the thoracic, lumbar, and abdominal trunk muscles would provide a more representative picture of the muscular reaction in response to bracing. With a larger number of EMG measuring sites, the presence of any brace-induced trunk muscle activity should be detected. Therefore, EMG signals of 11 adolescent idiopathic scoliosis patients who had been undergoing Boston brace treatment for 0.7-3 years were collected during four isometric tasks to evaluate the response of trunk muscles in the minutes following the application of the brace. Twenty-two pairs of bipolar electrodes were used to measure the EMG signals of the main superficial trunk muscles during four isometric tasks. EMG signals of trunk muscles were compared in braced and unbraced conditions. Brace-induced increases in EMG activity were significant in 43% of the individual measurements and in three of the four tasks for the group mean values. Increases were greater in the lumbar area, especially on the convex side of the secondary (lumbar) curve. These results thus suggest that immediately following the application of the brace, significant muscular responses can be observed in some patients.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".