MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Automatic jitter measurement in needle-detected motor unit potential trains

2022· article· en· W4292160715 on OpenAlexaff
Armando Malanda, Daniel W. Stashuk, Javier Navallas, Javier Rodríguez-Falces, Ignacio Rodríguez, César Valle, Oscar Garnés‐Camarena

Bibliographic record

VenueComputers in Biology and Medicine · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMuscle activation and electromyography studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersUniversidad Pública de NavarraUniversidad de Navarra
KeywordsJitterMotor unitTrainComputer scienceSimulationBiomedical engineeringMedicineAnatomyTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In an active motor unit (MU), the time intervals between the firings of its muscle fibers vary across successive MU activations. This variability is called jitter and is increased in pathological processes that affect the neuromuscular junctions or terminal axonal segments of MUs. Traditionally, jitter has been measured using single fiber electrodes (SFEs) and a difficult and subjective manual technique. SFEs are expensive and reused, implying a potential risk of patient infection; so, they are being gradually substituted by safer, disposable, concentric needle electrodes (CNEs). As CNEs are larger, voltage contributions from individual fibers of a MU are more difficult to detect, making jitter measurement more difficult. This paper presents an automatic method to estimate jitter from trains of motor unit potentials (MUPs), for both SFE and CNE records. For a MUP train, segments of MUPs generated by single muscle fibers (SF MUP segments) are found and jitter is measured between pairs of these segments. Segments whose estimated jitter values are not reliable, according to several SF MUP segment characteristics, are excluded. The method has been tested in several simulation studies that use mathematical models of muscle fiber potentials. The results are very satisfactory in terms of jitter estimation error (less than 10% in most of the cases studied) and mean number of valid jitter estimates obtained per simulated train (greater than 1.0 in many of the cases and less than 0.5 only in the most complicated). A preliminary study with real signals was also performed, using 19 MUP trains from 3 neuropathic patients. Jitter measurements obtained by the automatic method were compared with those extracted from a commercial system (Keypoint) and the edition and supervision of an expert electromyographer. From these measurements 63% were taken from equivalent interval pair sites within the time span of the MUP trains and, as such, were considered as compatible measurements. Differences in jitter of these compatible measurements were very low (mean value of 1.3 μs, mean of absolute differences of 2.97 μs, 25% and 75% percentile intervals of -0.85 and 3.82 μs, respectively). Although new tests with larger number of real recordings are still required, the method seems promising for clinical practice.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.222 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueComputers in Biology and MedicineSame topicMuscle activation and electromyography studiesFrench-language works237,207