Probabilistic muscle characterization using QEMG: Application to neuropathic muscle
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Clinicians who use electromyographic (EMG) signals to help determine the presence or absence of abnormality in a muscle often, with varying degrees of success, evaluate sets of motor unit potentials (MUPs) qualitatively and/or quantitatively to characterize the muscle in a clinically meaningful way. The resulting muscle characterization can be improved using automated analysis. As such, the intent of this study was to evaluate the performance of automated, conventional Means/Outlier and Probabilistic methods in converting MUP statistics into a concise, and clinically relevant, muscle characterization. Probabilistic methods combine the set of MUP characterizations, derived using Pattern Discovery (PD), of all MUPs detected from a muscle into a characterization measure that indicates normality or abnormality. Using MUP data from healthy control subjects and patients with known neuropathic disorders, a Probabilistic method that used Bayes' rule to combine MUP characterizations into a Bayesian muscle characterization (BMC) achieved a categorization accuracy of 79.7% compared to 76.4% using the Mean method (P > 0.1) for biceps muscles and 94.6% accuracy for the BMC method compared to 85.8% using the Mean method (P < 0.01) for first dorsal interosseous muscles. The BMC method can facilitate the determination of "possible," "probable," or "definite" levels for a given muscle categorization (e.g., neuropathic) whereas the conventional Means and Outlier methods support only a dichotomous "normal" or "abnormal" decision. This work demonstrates that the BMC method can provide information that may be more useful in supporting clinical decisions than that provided by the conventional Means or Outlier methods.
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 | 0.005 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".