Clinical considerations in the use of surface electromyography: Three experimental studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The validity and applicability of erector spinae electromyogram (EMG) use in clinical practice is questionable. Differences in the amplitude of the EMG signal between populations with low back pain (LBP) and controls have been hypothesized but not sufficiently documented. OBJECTIVE: To examine issues of EMG asymmetry and repeatability in populations with LBP and populations without LBPin 3 separate studies. STUDY DESIGN: Three separate experimental research studies. METHODS: Study 1 examined the intraclass correlation of the EMG signal of the paraspinal musculature at L3 on 3 separate days during quiet stance with use of 3 different normalization techniques: percent maximum voluntary contraction, percent submaximal voluntary contraction, and percent averaged submaximal contractions. Study 2 used a population with chronic LBP to compare the bilateral asymmetry of paraspinal musculature in segments exhibiting pain with segments not exhibiting pain during quiet stance. A 1-way analysis of variance was used to compare differences between asymmetry scores in the pain and nonpain groups. In study 3, persons with LBP and persons in the control group had the dynamic asymmetry of paraspinal musculature compared during forward bending. A cross-correlation coefficient assessing bilateral muscle activity was calculated for each subject and differences between groups were evaluated using a 1-way analysis of variance. RESULTS: Study 1: Subjects showed excellent repeatability (ICC > 0.75) regardless of the normalization technique. Study 2: During quiet stance no differences were found in bilateral asymmetry between painful and nonpainful motion segments. Study 3: No differences existed in bilateral dynamic symmetry for the upper erector spinae; however, differences between groups did exist for the lower erector spinae. CONCLUSION: Repeatability of the EMG signal during quiet stance is acceptable; however, bilateral asymmetry may not be a definitive indicator of dysfunction.
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 | 0.092 | 0.079 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".