Electromyographic investigation of anterior and posterior regions of supraspinatus: a novel approach based on anatomical insights
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Supraspinatus is composed of anterior and posterior regions that are distinct. To date, the relative electromyographic (EMG) activity of these regions during different tasks has not been investigated. This work, thus, evaluated activity of the anterior and posterior regions of supraspinatus during isometric actions in different postures. Data were analyzed from 11 healthy participants. Fine-wire electrodes were inserted into the anterior and posterior regions of supraspinatus. EMG activity was recorded during isometric abduction and external rotation exertions against 5% of body weight resistance. Three postures for abduction (30°, 60°, and 90° of humeral abduction, scapular plane) and two for external rotation (0° and 90° humeral abduction) were tested. Each participant’s data were normalized to the peak root mean square (RMS) values for the corresponding region. The RMS of the anterior region was divided by that of the posterior to calculate muscle activation ratios. Non-parametric statistics were used for analyses. The median ratio was lower during external rotation at 90° abduction compared to abduction at 30° (P = 0.003). These results suggest that the two regions of supraspinatus are functionally distinct during isometric tasks. The posterior region may play a more dominant role in postures with higher degrees of abduction and during external rotation exertions.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".