Muscle categorization using PDF estimation and Naive Bayes classification
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The structure of motor unit potentials (MUPs) and their times of occurrence provide information about the motor units (MUs) that created them. As such, electromyographic (EMG) data can be used to categorize muscles as normal or suffering from a neuromuscular disease. Using pattern discovery (PD) allows clinicians to understand the rationale underlying a certain muscle characterization; i.e. it is transparent. Discretization is required in PD, which leads to some loss in accuracy. In this work, characterization techniques that are based on estimating probability density functions (PDFs) for each muscle category are implemented. Characterization probabilities of each motor unit potential train (MUPT) are obtained from these PDFs and then Bayes rule is used to aggregate the MUPT characterization probabilities to calculate muscle level probabilities. Even though this technique is not as transparent as PD, its accuracy is higher than the discrete PD. Ultimately, the goal is to use a technique that is based on both PDFs and PD and make it as transparent and as efficient as possible, but first it was necessary to thoroughly assess how accurate a fully continuous approach can be. Using gaussian PDF estimation achieved improvements in muscle categorization accuracy over PD and further improvements resulted from using feature value histograms to choose more representative PDFs; for instance, using log-normal distribution to represent skewed histograms.
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 | 0.007 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".