Optimal E2 (reference) electrode placement in fibular motor nerve conduction studies recording from the tibialis anterior muscle
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: In this study we aimed to determine the contribution of the E2 (reference electrode) to the compound muscle action potential (CMAP) amplitude during fibular motor recording to the tibialis anterior (TA) when E2 is placed over routine referential vs. alternative sites. METHODS: The CMAP was obtained from 10 healthy subjects, using the active electrode (E1) over sites routinely used as E2 for the TA, whereas the E2 was over the contralateral knee. The same procedure was performed with the E1 over alternative E2 sites. RESULTS: Significant electrical signal was captured over routine E2 placement sites. Among the tested alternative E2 sites, the ipsilateral patella (especially its medial aspect) was the most electrically silent. DISCUSSION: Using alternative E2 sites with near isoelectric recordings can optimize near-field potential measurement in the fibular motor recording to the TA and represents a more accurate way of measuring nerve and muscle function. Muscle Nerve 59:249-253, 2019.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".