Muscle synergy analysis in transtibial amputee during ramp ascending activity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In developed countries, the highest number of amputees are elderly with transtibial amputation. Walking on inclined surfaces is difficult for amputees due to loss of muscle volume and strength thereby transtibial amputees (TA) rely on the intact limb to maintain stability. The aim of this study was to use the concatenated non-negative matrix factorization (CNMF) technique to calculate muscle synergy components and compare the difference in muscle synergies and their associated activation profiles in the healthy and amputee groups during ramp ascending (RA) activity. Healthy subjects' dominant leg and amputee's intact leg (IL) were considered for recording surface electromyography (sEMG). The muscle synergies comparison showed a reasonable correlation between the healthy and amputee groups. This suggests the central nervous system (CNS) activates the same group of muscles synergistically. However, the activation coefficient profile (C) results indicated statistically significant difference (p <; 0.05) in some parts of the gait cycle (GC) in healthy and amputee groups. The difference exhibited in activation profiles of amputee's IL could be due to the instability of the prosthetic leg during the GC which resulted in alteration of the IL muscles activations. This information will be useful in rehabilitation and in the future development of prosthetic devices by using the IL muscles information to control the prostheses.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".