Potential of a New, Flexible Electrode sEMG System in Detecting Electromyographic Activation in Low Back Muscles during Clinical Tests: A Pilot Study on Wearables for Pain Management
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: While low back pain (LBP) is the leading cause of disability worldwide, its clinical objective assessment is currently limited. Part of this syndrome arises from the abnormal sensorimotor control of back muscles, involving increased muscle fatigability (i.e., assessed with the Biering–Sorensen test) and abnormal muscle activation patterns (i.e., the flexion–extension test). Surface electromyography (sEMG) provides objective measures of muscle fatigue development (median frequency drop, MDF) and activation patterns (RMS amplitude change). This study therefore assessed the sensitivity and validity of a novel and flexible sEMG system (NSS) based on PEVA electrodes and potentially embeddable in textiles, as a tool for objective clinical LBP assessment. Methods: Twelve participants wearing NSS and a commercial laboratory sEMG system (CSS) performed two clinical tests used in LBP assessment (Biering–Sorensen and flexion–extension). Erector spinae muscle activity was recorded at T12-L1 and L4-L5. Results: NSS showed sensitivity to sEMG changes associated with fatigue development and muscle activations during flexion–extension movements (p < 0.05) that were similar to CSS (p > 0.05). Raw signals showed moderate cross-correlations (MDF: 0.60–0.68; RMS: 0.53–0.62). Adding conductive gel to the PEVA electrodes did not influence sEMG signal interpretation (p > 0.05). Conclusions: This novel sEMG system is promising for assessing electrophysiological indicators of LBP during clinical tests.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 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".