MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415995975 · doi:10.1186/s12984-025-01757-y

The role of surface EMG in predicting responsiveness of muscles to FES therapy after cervical SCI

2025· article· en· W4415995975 on OpenAlexafffund
Guijin Li, Gustavo Balbinot, Sharmini Atputharaj, Gita Gholamrezaei, Julio C. Furlan, Sukhvinder Kalsi‐Ryan, José Zariffa

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMuscle activation and electromyography studies
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser UniversityUniversity of TorontoToronto Rehabilitation InstituteUniversity Health Network
FundersU.S. Army Medical Research Acquisition ActivityCongressionally Directed Medical Research ProgramsToronto Rehabilitation InstituteWings for Life
KeywordsElectromyographyFunctional electrical stimulationBicepsSpinal cord injuryMuscle fatigueTibialis anterior muscleLogistic regressionTetraplegia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Cervical spinal cord injury (SCI) can severely impair upper extremity (UE) functions, limiting independence and quality of life. Prior clinical trials showed that functional electrical stimulation (FES) therapy can reduce UE impairment. However, the response to FES therapy is not consistent across all treated myotomes. Our objective was to predict the muscle response to FES therapy using electrophysiological biomarkers from baseline surface electromyography (sEMG) signals, in order to support treatment decisions at the point of care. METHODS: We recruited 17 participants with cervical SCI, who were about to undergo FES therapy. Target UE muscles were identified for each participant by treating therapists. Baseline sEMG signals were recorded from the target muscles during resting and maximal voluntary contractions. Time- and frequency-domain features were extracted. The manual muscle testing (MMT) score was tracked through the therapy cycle, and used to categorize each muscle as a responder or non-responder. We explored classifiers including support vector machines, k-nearest neighbors, random forest, and logistic regression, with leave-one-participant-out cross validation. Models were trained on sEMG features alone, on clinical variables alone, and combinations of both. RESULTS: The final dataset consisted of sEMG recordings of 132 muscles from 17 participants, and 33% of the muscles were considered responders. A Random Forest classifier with a forward-selected feature set yielded the best performance (Matthews correlation coefficient = 0.41, F1 score = 0.68, accuracy = 76%, precision = 0.72, recall = 0.42, and true negative rate = 0.92). With patient stratification based on motor completeness (AIS A-B vs. C-D), the model performance further improved. Included signal features were slope sign changes, mean and median frequency, and second-order spectral moment. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that baseline sEMG signals combined with machine learning models may be used to predict muscle response to FES therapy in individuals with cervical SCI. The models were trained on a small and unbalanced sample and can be optimized with more participants in the future. This work contributes to improving the level of personalization and efficacy of FES therapy, and ultimately improve quality of life after SCI.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.209 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of NeuroEngineering and RehabilitationSame topicMuscle activation and electromyography studiesFrench-language works237,207