MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2161660113 · doi:10.1109/iembs.1995.579708

Detecting single muscle fiber activity using a concentric needle electrode: a simulation study

2002· article· en· W2161660113 on OpenAlexaff
Md. Asraf Ali, Daniel W. Stashuk, M. Tvrdon

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMuscle activation and electromyography studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConcentricFiberElectrodeBiomedical engineeringMaterials scienceMuscle fibreMotor unitAccelerationRADIUSAcousticsMathematicsComposite materialAnatomyPhysicsComputer scienceGeometrySkeletal muscleMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Based on the line source model, simulated concentric-needle-detected motor unit action potentials (MUAPs) were transformed into compound weight functions using inverse-average-current filtering. The numbers of significant individual muscle fiber contributions to the compound weight functions were estimated using acceleration thresholds. The ability of the technique to detect the contribution of single fibers to a MUAP was evaluated. For fibers that contributed muscle fiber action potentials (MFAPs) with maximum slopes larger than 2.4 V/s to a MUAP, the correlation between the expected number of contributing fibers and the number measured was 0.95 and no significant bias existed. The spatial distribution of fibers that could be detected was found to be approximately semicircular with a radius of 300 /spl mu/m. This capacity to detect the activity of single fibers will allow the concentric needle electrode to be used in ways comparable to that of the single fiber electrode.

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)0.003
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
Metaresearch0.0010.003
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.202 · 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

Citations0
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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