Musculoskeletal Model to Predict Muscle Activity During Upper Limb Movement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Assessing biomechanics of upper limb movement is essential for guiding targeted therapy to treat conditions such as spasticity and dystonia. Targeted therapy, including injections of medications into specific muscles (e.g., lidocaine, botulinum toxin type A), requires accurate identification (activity) and contribution of as many muscles as possible. Currently, this is achieved by visual clinical assessment or using surface electromyography (sEMG). Although sEMG could provide a reasonable estimate of muscle activity for certain superficial muscles after an intense filtering process, they are unable to provide separated activity and contribution for every superficial and deep muscle. Other proposed musculoskeletal and machine learning models similarly do not provide a detailed and accurate activity of every muscle. The objective of the study is to design a subject-specific musculoskeletal model to predict the activity and contribution of each muscle pertaining to any upper limb movement with improved detail and accuracy over existing methodologies. Performance metrics were calculated for validation by comparing the predicted muscle activity with the normalized sEMG data computed from 8 superficial muscles, while the deeper muscles were not included in the validation as the sEMG is unable to provide a separated activity for those muscles. The results show that the proposed model has a mean R <sup xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">2</sup> value of 0.8190 and also indicated a statistically significant correlation ( P <; 0.0001) between the calculated (normalized sEMG data) and predicted activity value. Additionally, and significantly, compared to earlier studies, the proposed model predicts the individual muscle activity and contribution of deeper muscles.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".