Quantitative sonographic evaluation of muscle thickness and fasciculation prevalence in healthy subjects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In the current study, we aimed to determine normative values for muscle thickness and fasciculation prevalence in healthy subjects. METHODS: We performed a prospective study from October to December 2018 in 65 healthy subjects. All subjects underwent quantitative sonographic evaluation of muscle thickness and fasciculation prevalence in the following 8 muscles: Biceps brachii, abductor pollicis brevis, first dorsal interosseous, abductor digiti minimi, quadriceps, tibialis anterior, extensor digitorum brevis, and abductor hallucis brevis. RESULTS: Subject ages ranged from 21 to 82 years, with 63% women. Normative values for muscle thickness were determined using the fifth percentile. Multivariate regression analysis showed that sex, age, body mass index, and hand dominance affected muscle thickness. Fasciculations were observed frequently only in distal muscles. CONCLUSIONS: Normal values for muscle thickness were determined, and may enhance neuromuscular ultrasound sensitivity and serve as a basis for future studies. Larger series are needed to confirm these values.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".