A Neurophysiological Pattern as a Precursor of Work-Related Musculoskeletal Disorders Using EEG Combined with EMG
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We aimed to determine the neurophysiological pattern that is associated with the development of musculoskeletal pain that is induced by biomechanical constraints. Twelve (12) young healthy volunteers (two females) performed two experimental realistic manual tasks for 30 min each: (1) with the high risk of musculoskeletal pain development and (2) with low risk for pain development. During the tasks, synchronized electroencephalographic (EEG) and electromyography (EMG) signals data were collected, as well as pain scores. Subsequently, two main variables were computed from neurophysiological signals: (1) cortical inhibition as Task-Related Power Increase (TRPI) in beta EEG frequency band (β.TRPI) and (2) muscle variability as Coefficient of Variation (CoV) from EMG signals. A strong effect size was observed for pain measurement under the high risk condition during the last 5 min of the task execution; with muscle fatigue, because the CoV has decreased below 18%. An increase in cortical inhibition (β.TRPI >50%) was observed after the 5th min of the task in both experimental conditions. These results suggest the following neurophysiological pattern-β.TRPI ≥ 50% and CoV ≤ 18%-as a possible indicator to monitor the development of musculoskeletal pain in the shoulder in the context of repeated and prolonged exposure to manual tasks.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".