Using Physiological Markers to Assess Comfort during Neuromuscular Electrical Stimulation Induced Muscle Contraction in a Virtually Guided Environment: Pilot Study for a Path toward Combating ICU-Acquired Weakness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We assessed the feasibility of implementing a virtually guided Neuromuscular Electrical Stimulation (NMES) protocol over the tibialis anterior (TA) muscle while collecting heart rate (HR), Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS), and quality of contraction (QoC) data. We investigated if HR, NPRS, and QoC differ ON and OFF the TA motor point and explored potential relationships between heart rate variability (HRV) and the NPRS. Twelve healthy adults participated in this cross-sectional study. Three NMES trials were delivered ON and OFF the TA motor point. HR, QoC, and NPRS data were collected. There was no significant difference in HRV ON and OFF the motor point (p > 0.05). The NPRS was significantly greater OFF the motor point (p < 0.05). The QoC was significantly different between motor point configurations (p < 0.05). There was no correlation between the NPRS and HRV (p > 0.05, r = −0.129). We recommend non-electrical methods of measuring muscle activity for future studies. The NPRS and QoC can be administered virtually. Time-domain HRV measures could increase the validity of the protocol. The variables should be explored further virtually to enhance the protocol before eventual ICU studies.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".