Differences in the Activity of the Muscles in the Forearm of Individuals with a Congenital Absence of the Hand
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The spectral content of the myoelectric signals from the muscles of the remnant forearms of three persons with congenital absences (CA) of their forearms was compared with signals from their intact contra-lateral limbs, similar muscles in three persons with acquired losses (AL) and seven persons without absences [no loss (NL)]. The observed bandwidth for the CA subjects was broader with peak energy between 200 and 300 Hz. While the signals from the contra-lateral limbs and the AL and NL subjects was in the 100-150 Hz range. The mean skew of the signals from the AL subjects was 46.3 +/- 6.7 and those with NL of 45.4 +/- 8.7, while the signals from those with CAs had a skew of 11.0 +/- 11. The structure of the muscles of one CA subject was observed ultrasonically. The muscle showed greater disruption than normally developed muscles. It is speculated that the myographic signal reflects the structure of the muscle which has developed in a more disorganized manner as a result of the muscle not being stretched by other muscles across the missing distal joint, even in the muscles that are used regularly to control arm prostheses.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".