Reliability of a simple method for determining muscle fiber conduction velocity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: This study evaluated the reliability of muscle fiber conduction velocity (MFCV) measurement. METHODS: Forty healthy, young participants performed isometric dorsiflexion of the foot on 3 non-consecutive days. The reliability of force, root-mean-square (RMS) amplitude of the surface electromyographic (sEMG) signal, and MFCV were evaluated using the intraclass correlational analysis of variance technique. RESULTS: The means across test days for all measures exhibited slight changes (<5%) and were considered stable. All measures exhibited remarkable consistency within subjects as indicated by high intraclass correlation coefficients (0.83-0.98). CONCLUSIONS: The procedures resulted in highly reliable MFCV values, and included: (1) electric identification of motor points prior to electrode placement; (2) twitch identification of muscle fiber orientation to guide initial electrode placement; (3) rotation of electrodes clockwise or counter-clockwise to maximize the similarity and delay of compound muscle action potentials across all detection surfaces; and (4) minimization of synergistic activity during voluntary contractions.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".