ArticleMedical & biological engineering & computing2020
Linear mixed-effects models for the analysis of high-density electromyography with application to diabetic peripheral neuropathy.
Article in Medical & biological engineering & computing, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Music Choreography Algorithm Based on Feature Matching and Fragment Segmentation.Computational intelligence and neuroscience · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This article demonstrates the power and flexibility of linear mixed-effects models (LMEMs) to investigate high-density surface electromyography (HD-sEMG) signals. The potentiality of the model is illustrated by investigating the root mean squared value of HD-sEMG signals in the tibialis anterior muscle of healthy (n = 11) and individuals with diabetic peripheral neuropathy (n = 12). We started by presenting the limitations of traditional approaches by building a linear model with only fixed effects. Then, we showed how the model adequacy could be increased by including random effects, as well as by adding alternative correlation structures. The models were compared with the Akaike information criterion and the Bayesian information criterion, as well as the likelihood ratio test. The results showed that the inclusion of the random effects of intercept and slope, along with an autoregressive moving average correlation structure, is the one that best describes the data (p < 0.01). Furthermore, we demonstrate how the inclusion of additional variance structures can accommodate heterogeneity in the residual analysis and therefore increase model adequacy (p < 0.01). Thus, in conclusion, we suggest that adopting LMEM to repeated measures such as electromyography can provide additional information from the data (e.g. test for alternative correlation structures of the RMS value), and hence provide new insights into HD-sEMG-related work.
Indexed as
Identifiers
32447652What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.