MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2138897554 · doi:10.1109/iembs.1995.579709

The measurement of neuromuscular junction jitter using a concentric needle electrode: a simulation study

2002· article· en· W2138897554 on OpenAlexaff
M. Tvrdon, Daniel W. Stashuk, Md. Asraf Ali

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMuscle activation and electromyography studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsJitterStandard deviationConcentricMotor unitMathematicsElectromyographyInterpolation (computer graphics)Biomedical engineeringMaterials scienceAcousticsMathematical analysisPhysicsComputer scienceAnatomyStatisticsGeometryArtificial intelligenceEngineeringMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Under the line-source model, ensembles of concentric-needle motor unit action potentials (MUAPs) were simulated. Neuromuscular junction jitter was simulated by delaying the initiation of muscle fibre action potentials (MFAPs) by a normal random variate. To transform the MFAP contributions to a MUAP into symmetrical, singly-peaked, positive functions, inverse-average-current filtering was applied to the MUAPs of the ensembles, producing composite weight functions. The jitter estimate, defined as the standard deviation of composite weight function interpeak intervals over an ensemble, was correlated to the standard deviation of the random variable used to delay the initiation of the MFAPs. Since normal jitter is of the order of 25 /spl mu/sec, the base sampling interval of 40 /spl mu/sec was enhanced to approximately 2 /spl mu/sec using divided-difference interpolation. It was found that the measured jitter varied approximately linearly with the expected jitter. The correlation coefficients between the expected and measured jitter were 0.97, 0.96, and 0.94 for the three MUAP ensembles studied.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
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 science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.185 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations1
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMuscle activation and electromyography studies→French-language works237,207→