Kush Kapur1, Rebecca S Taylor2, Kristin Qi2, Janice A Nagy2, Jia Li2, Benjamin Sanchez2, Seward B Rutkove2. 1. Department of Neurology, Boston Children's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, 02115, USA. 2. Department of Neurology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, 330 Brookline Avenue, TCC-810 Boston, Massachusetts, 02215, USA.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Electrical impedance can be used to estimate cellular characteristics. We sought to determine whether it could be used to approximate myofiber size using standard prediction modeling approaches. METHODS: Forty-four C57BL/6J wild-type immature mice of varying ages underwent electrical impedance myography (EIM) with a needle electrode array placed in the gastrocnemius. Animals were then humanely killed and muscle fixed, stained, and myofiber size quantified. Two different statistical prediction models were then applied. RESULTS: Impedance parameters showed major variation with increasing myofiber size. The prediction models based on EIM data alone were able to predict fiber size, with errors in the range of ±69.05-78.44 µm2 (16.19%-18.40% with respect to the average myofiber size). DISCUSSION: By using well-established statistical models, EIM data alone can provide a satisfactory estimate of myofiber size. Additional study of this approach for approximating myofiber size without the requirement of removing tissue for histological analysis is warranted. Muscle Nerve, 2018.
INTRODUCTION: Electrical impedance can be used to estimate cellular characteristics. We sought to determine whether it could be used to approximate myofiber size using standard prediction modeling approaches. METHODS: Forty-four C57BL/6J wild-type immature mice of varying ages underwent electrical impedance myography (EIM) with a needle electrode array placed in the gastrocnemius. Animals were then humanely killed and muscle fixed, stained, and myofiber size quantified. Two different statistical prediction models were then applied. RESULTS: Impedance parameters showed major variation with increasing myofiber size. The prediction models based on EIM data alone were able to predict fiber size, with errors in the range of ±69.05-78.44 µm2 (16.19%-18.40% with respect to the average myofiber size). DISCUSSION: By using well-established statistical models, EIM data alone can provide a satisfactory estimate of myofiber size. Additional study of this approach for approximating myofiber size without the requirement of removing tissue for histological analysis is warranted. Muscle Nerve, 2018.
Authors: Jia Li; Tom R Geisbush; Glenn D Rosen; Jennifer Lachey; Aaron Mulivor; Seward B Rutkove Journal: Muscle Nerve Date: 2014-06 Impact factor: 3.217
Authors: Robert Tibshirani; Jacob Bien; Jerome Friedman; Trevor Hastie; Noah Simon; Jonathan Taylor; Ryan J Tibshirani Journal: J R Stat Soc Series B Stat Methodol Date: 2012-03 Impact factor: 4.488
Authors: Seward B Rutkove; James B Caress; Michael S Cartwright; Ted M Burns; Judy Warder; William S David; Namita Goyal; Nicholas J Maragakis; Lora Clawson; Michael Benatar; Sharon Usher; Khema R Sharma; Shiva Gautam; Pushpa Narayanaswami; Elizabeth M Raynor; Mary Lou Watson; Jeremy M Shefner Journal: Amyotroph Lateral Scler Date: 2012-06-07
Authors: M Sung; J Li; A J Spieker; J Spatz; R Ellman; V L Ferguson; T A Bateman; G D Rosen; M Bouxsein; S B Rutkove Journal: J Musculoskelet Neuronal Interact Date: 2013-12 Impact factor: 2.041
Authors: Bhaskar Roy; Basil T Darras; Craig M Zaidman; Jim S Wu; Kush Kapur; Seward B Rutkove Journal: Clin Neurophysiol Date: 2019-02-12 Impact factor: 3.708
Authors: Marie Mortreux; Janice A Nagy; Haowen Zhong; Dong-Min Sung; Holly A Concepcion; Melanie Leitner; Laura Dalle Pazze; Seward B Rutkove Journal: J Vis Exp Date: 2022-06-08 Impact factor: 1.424
Authors: Sarbesh R Pandeya; Janice A Nagy; Daniela Riveros; Carson Semple; Rebecca S Taylor; Benjamin Sanchez; Seward B Rutkove Journal: PLoS One Date: 2021-10-29 Impact factor: 3.752