MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412802847 · doi:10.1109/lsens.2025.3594215

Tracking Muscle Stiffness During Gripping With Wearable Ultrasound Shear-Wave Elastometry

2025· article· en· W4412802847 on OpenAlexaff
Shane Steinberg, Yuu Ono, Sreeraman Rajan

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Sensors Letters · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMuscle activation and electromyography studies
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWearable computerShear (geology)UltrasoundTracking (education)StiffnessMaterials scienceAcousticsBiomedical engineeringMedicineGeologyComputer scienceComposite materialPhysicsPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study demonstrates a wearable ultrasound shear-wave elastometry (wUS-SWEM) device for tracking depth-resolved muscle stiffness with respect to gripping force. Shear waves were generated by a miniature actuator and detected using two unfocused ultrasound transducers integrated into a compact, wearable form factor. The device was applied to monitor the forearm flexor muscles during a cyclic grip–relax task, yielding spatiotemporal shear modulus patterns aligned with task timing. In the superficial flexors region, shear modulus exhibited a strong linear correlation with grip force (<inline-formula xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"><tex-math notation="LaTeX">$r = 0.82{--}0.86$</tex-math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"><tex-math notation="LaTeX">$p&lt; 0.001$</tex-math></inline-formula>), supporting its use as a non-invasive predictor for muscle force. These results demonstrate the feasibility of shear modulus tracking during functional activity of the upper-arm using wUS-SWEM and highlight its potential for neuromuscular assessment and human-machine interfacing.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.766
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.200
Teacher spread0.191 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Sensors LettersSame topicMuscle activation and electromyography studiesFrench-language works237,207