Transparent Electrophysiological Muscle Classification From EMG Signals Using Fuzzy-Based Multiple Instance Learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although a well-established body of literature has examined electrophysiological muscle classification methods and systems, ways to enhance their transparency is still an important challenge and requires further study. In this work, a transparent semi-supervised electrophysiological muscle classification system which uses needle-detected EMG signals to classify muscles as normal, myopathic, or neurogenic is proposed. The electrophysiological muscle classification (EMC) problem is naturally formulated using multiple instance learning (MIL) and needs an adaptation of standard supervised classifiers for the purpose of training and evaluating bags of instances. Here, a novel MIL-based EMC system in which the muscle classifier uses predictions based on motor unit potentials (MUPs) to infer muscle labels is described. This system uses morphological, stability, near fiber and spectral MUP features. Quantitative results obtained from applying the proposed transparent system to four electrophysiologically different groups of muscles, composed of proximal and distal hand and leg muscles, resulted in an average classification accuracy of 95.85%. The findings show the superior and stable performance of the proposed EMC system compared to previous works using other supervised, semi-supervised and unsupervised methods.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".