ArticlePloS one2026
Deep Learning outperforms physicians in myopathy and neuropathy classification based on Needle Electromyography Signal.
Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Needle electromyography (nEMG) is a valuable tool for diagnosing patients with neuromuscular diseases. However, it is labor-intensive and is prone to diagnostic inaccuracies stemming from human biases. To address these challenges, we validated an nEMG diagnosis-aiding system with minimal preprocessing using deep learning model to classify patients into three categories: normal, myopathy, and neuropathy. Using 376 nEMG signals from 57 patients from a tertiary university hospital database through nested k-fold cross validation, deep learning model surpassed the classification performance of six electromyographers. The median patient classification accuracy, precision, sensitivity, and specificity of the deep learning model was 0.70, 0.70, 0.70, and 0.85, respectively, whereas those of the physicians were 0.55, 0.60, 0.54, and 0.78, respectively. Model interpretability and failure analysis showed that the deep learning model classifies based on relevant signal features. Despite higher accuracy of DL model, the number of unanimously misclassified cases were higher in the DL model than physicians. Our study validates deep learning is a fast, accurate, and practical application to aid physicians in diagnosing patients using nEMG signals.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.