MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2152540937 · doi:10.1109/iembs.2009.5332867

Analysis of the electromyogram of rapid eye movement sleep using wavelet techniques

2009· article· en· W2152540937 on OpenAlexafffund
M. Shokrollahi, Sridhar Krishnan, D. Jewell, Brian J. Murray

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMuscle activation and electromyography studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoToronto Metropolitan University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsWaveletLinear discriminant analysisPattern recognition (psychology)Artificial intelligenceTime–frequency analysisComputer scienceSIGNAL (programming language)Eye movementSpeech recognitionWavelet transformFrequency domainSignal processingFeature extractionFeature (linguistics)Time domainFrequency analysisElectromyographyComputer visionDigital signal processingPhysical medicine and rehabilitationAlgorithmMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Quantitative electromyographic (EMG) signal analysis in the frequency domain using classical power spectrum analysis techniques has been well documented over the past decade. Yet due to the nature of EMG, frequency analysis cannot be used to approximate a signal whose properties change over time. To address this problem a time varying feature representation has to be analyzed to extract useful information from the signal. In this paper, Wavelet analysis technique has been used to extract features from EMG, and Linear Discriminant Analysis have been used to classify the signal into two classes, normal or abnormal, which reflects the loss of rapid eye movement sleep atonia commonly seen in Parkinson disease (PD). An overall classification accuracy of 94.3% was achieved.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.221 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations19
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMuscle activation and electromyography studiesFrench-language works237,207