MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2117402116 · doi:10.1002/mus.21762

Influence of stimulus pulse width on M‐waves, H‐reflexes, and torque during tetanic low‐intensity neuromuscular stimulation

2010· article· en· W2117402116 on OpenAlexafffund
Olle Lagerquist, David F. Collins

Bibliographic record

VenueMuscle & Nerve · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMuscle activation and electromyography studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsIsometric exerciseStimulationH-reflexPulse (music)ReflexStimulus (psychology)Physical medicine and rehabilitationMedicineTorqueAnesthesiaPhysical therapyPhysicsPsychologyInternal medicineVoltage

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) has been shown to generate contractions that include a central recruitment of motoneurons; however, the effect of pulse width on electromyographic (EMG) and torque responses during NMES are not well documented. Soleus EMG and isometric plantarflexion torque were recorded from 14 subjects with NMES delivered to the tibial nerve using 50, 200, 500, and 1000 μs pulse widths. M-waves were significantly smaller during 20 Hz NMES compared with responses evoked by single pulses of 200, 500, and 1000 μs, but not 50 μs pulse widths. At all pulse widths, stimulation at 20 Hz depressed soleus H-reflexes compared with single pulses. Two seconds of 100 Hz NMES significantly increased H-reflexes and torque during the subsequent 20 Hz NMES with 200, 500, and 1000 μs, but not 50 μs, pulse widths. NMES delivered using wide pulses generated larger contractions with a relatively greater central contribution than narrow pulses. This may help reduce atrophy and produce fatigue-resistant contractions for rehabilitation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.205
Teacher spread0.199 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations84
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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