A Novel Application of Deep Learning (Convolutional Neural Network) for Traumatic Spinal Cord Injury Classification Using Automatically Learned Features of EMG Signal
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study, a traumatic spinal cord injury (TSCI) classification system is proposed using a convolutional neural network (CNN) technique with automatically learned features from electromyography (EMG) signals for a non-human primate (NHP) model. A comparison between the proposed classification system and a classical classification method (k-nearest neighbors, kNN) is also presented. Developing such an NHP model with a suitable assessment tool (i.e., classifier) is a crucial step in detecting the effect of TSCI using EMG, which is expected to be essential in the evaluation of the efficacy of new TSCI treatments. Intramuscular EMG data were collected from an agonist/antagonist tail muscle pair for the pre- and post-spinal cord lesion from five Macaca fasicularis monkeys. The proposed classifier is based on a CNN using filtered segmented EMG signals from the pre- and post-lesion periods as inputs, while the kNN is designed using four hand-crafted EMG features. The results suggest that the CNN provides a promising classification technique for TSCI, compared to conventional machine learning classification. The kNN with hand-crafted EMG features classified the pre- and post-lesion EMG data with an F-measure of 89.7% and 92.7% for the left- and right-side muscles, respectively, while the CNN with the EMG segments classified the data with an F-measure of 89.8% and 96.9% for the left- and right-side muscles, respectively. Finally, the proposed deep learning classification model (CNN), with its learning ability of high-level features using EMG segments as inputs, shows high potential and promising results for use as a TSCI classification system. Future studies can confirm this finding by considering more subjects.
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) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".