Comparison study of classification methods of intramuscular electromyography data for non-human primate model of traumatic spinal cord injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Traumatic spinal cord injury is a serious neurological disorder. Patients experience a plethora of symptoms that can be attributed to the nerve fiber tracts that are compromised. This includes limb weakness, sensory impairment, and truncal instability, as well as a variety of autonomic abnormalities. This article will discuss how machine learning classification can be used to characterize the initial impairment and subsequent recovery of electromyography signals in an non-human primate model of traumatic spinal cord injury. The ultimate objective is to identify potential treatments for traumatic spinal cord injury. This work focuses specifically on finding a suitable classifier that differentiates between two distinct experimental stages (pre-and post-lesion) using electromyography signals. Eight time-domain features were extracted from the collected electromyography data. To overcome the imbalanced dataset issue, synthetic minority oversampling technique was applied. Different ML classification techniques were applied including multilayer perceptron, support vector machine, K-nearest neighbors, and radial basis function network; then their performances were compared. A confusion matrix and five other statistical metrics (sensitivity, specificity, precision, accuracy, and F-measure) were used to evaluate the performance of the generated classifiers. The results showed that the best classifier for the left- and right-side data is the multilayer perceptron with a total F-measure of 79.5% and 86.0% for the left and right sides, respectively. This work will help to build a reliable classifier that can differentiate between these two phases by utilizing some extracted time-domain electromyography features.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".