MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2797464939 · doi:10.1109/bhi.2018.8333369

Impact of suppressed tremor: Is suppression of proximal joints sufficient?

2018· article· en· W2797464939 on OpenAlexaff
Yue Zhou, Mary E. Jenkins, Michael D. Naish, Ana Luisa Trejos

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeurological disorders and treatments
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysical medicine and rehabilitationElectromyographyWristElbowExoskeletonWearable computerJoint (building)Essential tremorComputer scienceMedicineEngineeringSurgeryStructural engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recent progress in wearable technology has made exoskeleton-type therapy devices a potentially viable alternative solution for Parkinsonian tremor management. The target user group includes patients for whom current treatments have had no or minimal effect, or may cause major complications. So far, a number of tremor suppression devices have been developed. However, most of the studies and devices only considered the tremor in the wrist and elbow despite evidence that tremor is also present in the finger joints. The aim of this paper is to study the impact of suppressed tremor on the unrestricted joints, and to determine the importance of suppressing finger tremor in addition to the other most-studied joints. In this paper, tremor was analyzed using linear acceleration and electromyography (EMG) signals. The results show an increase in tremor magnitude in the unrestricted joints; however, EMG analysis did not show significant change in tremor muscle activity. This indicates that the increase in tremor motion may be the result of the propagation of tremor from one joint to another.

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)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.299 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations7
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicNeurological disorders and treatments→French-language works237,207→