MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2075405106 · doi:10.1002/mus.22341

Decomposition‐based quantitative electromyography in the evaluation of muscular dystrophy severity

2011· article· en· W2075405106 on OpenAlexafffund
Kendra L. Derry, Shannon L. Venance, Timothy J. Doherty

Bibliographic record

VenueMuscle & Nerve · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMuscle activation and electromyography studies
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsElectromyographyBicepsMuscular dystrophyMedicineIsometric exerciseFacioscapulohumeral muscular dystrophyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationLimb-girdle muscular dystrophyMotor unitInternal medicinePhysical therapyCardiologyAnatomyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Electromyography is useful in the diagnosis of myopathies, but its utility in determining disease severity requires further investigation. In this study we aimed to determine whether decomposition-based quantitative electromyography (DQEMG) could indicate the severity of involvement in a cohort of patients with muscular dystrophies (MDs). METHODS: Fifteen patients with facioscapulohumeral (FSHD), limb-girdle (LGMD), and Becker (BMD) muscular dystrophy, and 7 healthy controls, participated in this investigation. Knee extensor isometric strength differentiated the "more severe" and "less severe" MD groups. The vastus lateralis (VL), biceps brachii (BB), and tibialis anterior (TA) muscle groups were investigated using DQEMG. RESULTS: All muscles from the MD group showed changes in mean MUP (motor unit potential) AAR (area-to-amplitude ratio), and turns, compared with controls (P < 0.05). More severely affected muscles (VL and BB) also had shortened mean MUP durations compared with controls (P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: DQEMG was capable of indicating the severity of MD involvement, as changes in MUP morphology reflected the progressive nature of the disease.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.911
Threshold uncertainty score0.504

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.050
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.232 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations15
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMuscle & NerveSame topicMuscle activation and electromyography studiesFrench-language works237,207