Electrophysiological Muscle Classification Using Multiple Instance Learning and Unsupervised Time and Spectral Domain Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Electrophysiological muscle classification (EMC) is a crucial step in the diagnosis of neuromuscular disorders. Existing quantitative techniques are not sufficiently robust and accurate to be reliably clinically used. Here, EMC is modeled as a multiple instance learning (MIL) problem and a system to infer unsupervised motor unit potential (MUP) labels and create supervised muscle classifications is presented. METHODS: The system has five main steps: MUP representation using morphological, stability, and near fiber parameters as well as spectral features extracted from wavelet coefficients; MUP feature selection using unsupervised Laplacian scores; MUP clustering using neighborhood distance entropy consistency to find representations of MUP normality and abnormality; muscle representation by embedding its MUP cluster associations in a feature vector; and muscle classification using support vector machines or random forests. RESULTS: The evaluation data consist of 63, 83, 93, and 84 sets of MUPs recorded in deltoid, vastus medialis, first dorsal interosseous, and tibialis anterior muscles, respectively. The proposed system discovered representations of normal, myopathic, and neurogenic MUPs for each specific muscle type and resulted in an average classification accuracy of 98%, which is higher than in previous works. CONCLUSION: Modeling EMC as an instance of the MIL solves the traditional problem of characterizing MUPs without full supervision. Furthermore, finding representations of MUP normality and abnormality using morphological, stability, near fiber, and spectral features improve muscle classification. SIGNIFICANCE: The proposed method is able to characterize MUPs with respect to disease categories, with no a priori information.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".