Minimum Standards for Electromyography in Canada: A Statement of the Canadian Society of Clinical Neurophysiologists
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Electromyography (EMG) is a widely used diagnostic technique for disorders of the nervous system. The Canadian Society of Clinical Neurophysiologists (CSCN) promotes the education, evaluation and standards of EMG in Canada. A statement of practice standards was needed to clarify the position of the CSCN on several issues relevant to the practice of EMG. METHODS AND RESULTS: A subcommittee of the CSCN reviewed current patterns of practice and established guidelines for review by the CSCN. The guidelines developed by the subcommittee were reviewed by the CSCN and adopted as recommendations for EMG practice. The subcommittee was charged with formulation of a document for publication. CONCLUSIONS: This document deals with minimum standards for electromyographer education, laboratory operation, equipment and a variety of special circumstances relevant to the practice of EMG. The standards can be adopted by EMG laboratories to guide quality assurance.
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 | 0.042 | 0.058 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.011 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".