Functional assessment of the pelvic floor muscles by electromyography: is there a normalization in data analysis? A systematic review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT This study aims to evaluate the method of analysis of electromyographic data considering the functional assessment of pelvic floor muscles (PFM). We have included in our search strategy the following databases: Medline, PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, PEDro, and IBECS, considering articles published in the last ten years (2004-2014). The identified articles were independently examined by two evaluators, according to these inclusion criteria: (1) population: female adults; (2) PFM assessment by electromyography (EMG) with vaginal/anal probe; and (3) description of how electromyographic data analysis is performed. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) was used to assess the risk of bias. We identified 508 articles, of which 23 were included in the review. The data showed differences between the collection protocols, and a significant number of studies did not normalize the electromyographic data. Physiotherapists are among the clinicians who most frequently use EMG to evaluate the function and dysfunction of the neuromuscular system. Although some previous studies have provided an overview to guide the evaluator in the assessment, few succeeding studies followed their recommendations.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 it