MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Automated analysis for portable EMG recording of nocturnal masseter activity in bruxers

2002· article· en· W2158433808 on OpenAlexaff
Luigi M. Gallo, Pierre Rompré, G. J. Lavigne, S. Palla

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Oral Rehabilitation · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicTemporomandibular Joint Disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSleep BruxismMasseter muscleElectromyographyAsymptomaticMedicineAudiologyDentistryPhysical medicine and rehabilitationInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Facial pain of patients with craniomandibular disorders might be caused by muscle overload. In a former study ( Gallo et al ., 1999 ) we collected data on masseter EMG of healthy subjects during sleep by means of portable recorders (integration time of 500 ms). The automated analysis of the tracings yielded the normal range of activity in the natural environment. For this study, we focused on the analysis of the distribution of masseter activity in bruxers by means of the same automated system used for asymptomatic subjects. For this purpose, data from single masseter channels of polysomnographic recordings of 10 bruxers and 10 controls were reformatted as if they had been recorded by means of the portable devices. The signals were analysed for number, amplitude and duration of contraction episodes (signal portions above a threshold which could contain subthreshold portions shorter than the standby time of 5 s). The signal amplitude was expressed in percentage of the amplitude at maximum voluntary contraction (%MVC). In the bruxers, 166·8 ± 48·5 contraction episodes per night, i.e. 20·4 ± 5·7 h −1 , with a net duration of 8·4 ± 2·4 s and an integral of the amplitude over time of 191·6 ± 74·0 %MVCs were found (controls: 96·5 ± 39, 12·9 ± 3·5, 4·7 ± 1·2 s and 99·1 ± 28·0 %MVCs, respectively) . For these parameters there was a statistically significant difference between the two groups ( t ‐test, P < 0·01). The distribution of all contraction episodes of all bruxers according to net duration and mean amplitude was shifted towards shorter episodes with a massive presence of episodes between 60 and 70% MVC, much higher than in controls.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.047
Threshold uncertainty score0.395

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.412
Teacher spread0.352 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations0
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Oral RehabilitationSame topicTemporomandibular Joint DisordersFrench-language works237,207