Using motor unit potential characterizations to estimate neuromuscular disorder level of involvement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Based on the analysis of electromyographic (EMG) data muscles are often characterized as normal or affected by a neuromuscular disorder. Motor unit potential (MUP) characterizations comprised of the conditional probabilities of a MUP being detected from a muscle of each of the following categories: myopathic, normal, and neuropathic, were estimated. The sets of MUP characterizations of a set of MUPs detected in a muscle were averaged to produce a set of muscle characterization measures related to the probability of the muscle belonging to each category conditioned on the set of MUPs detected. Using simulated EMG signals, the objective of this work was to evaluate the correlation between the muscle characterization measures produced by different MUP characterization methods and the level of involvement of a disorder. The results showed a correlation of 0.9 between myopathic and neuropathic muscle characterization measures and the actual level of involvement when using a Pattern Discovery (PD) method to estimate MUP characterizations. This work suggests that MUP characterizations can be used to assist clinicians in tracking the progress of a disease process.
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 | 0.002 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".