| Literature DB >> 32766224 |
Weidi Tang1, Xu Zhang1, Yong Sun2, Bo Yao3, Xiang Chen1, Xun Chen1, Xiaoping Gao4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is a great demand for convenient and quantitative assessment of upper-limb traumatic peripheral nerve injuries (PNIs) beyond their clinical routine. This would contribute to improved PNI management and rehabilitation.Entities:
Keywords: clinical assessment; machine learning; non-invasive examination; peripheral nerve injury; surface electromyography
Year: 2020 PMID: 32766224 PMCID: PMC7379167 DOI: 10.3389/fbioe.2020.00795
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Bioeng Biotechnol ISSN: 2296-4185
Physical information and clinical assessment decisions for all subjects with peripheral nerve injuries.
| S1 | 26–30 | M | L | + + | − | − | − | − | − |
| S2 | 31–35 | M | R | − | − | − | + | + | + |
| S3 | 16–20 | M | L | − | − | + + | − | − | − |
| S4 | 16–20 | M | L | + + | + + | − | − | − | − |
| S5 | 31–35 | M | L | − | − | + + | − | − | − |
| S6 | 16–20 | M | R | − | − | − | + + | + + | − |
| S7 | 21–25 | M | L | − | + | − | − | − | − |
FIGURE 1Electrode placement for surface EMG data recording.
FIGURE 2Illustration of eight designated motion tasks.
FIGURE 3The framework for evaluating injury degrees of three individual nerves on the forearm in the proposed method.
The relationship between PNI decisions on individual nerves and different conditions.
| o | o | none | none |
| o | x | injury | none |
| x | o | none | injury |
| x | x | injury | none |
| o | none | ||
| x | injury | ||
Deduction points according to the ratio.
| Ratio( | 0.25 < | 0.20 < | 0.15 < | 0.10 < | 0.05 < | 0 < |
| Deduction points | 0 | −1 | −2 | −3 | −4 | −5 |
FIGURE 4The pie graph of evaluation decisions and clinical assessment decisions for both arms of subjects with PNIs. The left and right arms of S1–S7 were represented by a 25.71–degree fan and a fan in dark indicated that any PNI is identified on that arm.
Results of evaluating each nerve in each step of the Module II.
| Step1: voluntary signal detection | ADM in UD | 0 | / | / | 0 | 0 | / | 0 | / | 0 | 0 | / | −5 | 0 | / |
| APB in RD | 0 | / | / | 0 | 0 | / | 0 | / | 0 | 0 | / | 0 | 0 | / | |
| RM in RD | 0 | / | / | 0 | 0 | / | 0 | / | 0 | 0 | / | 0 | 0 | / | |
| Step2: spontaneous fasciculation detection | ADM in UD | −5 | / | / | 0 | 0 | / | −5 | / | 0 | 0 | / | 0 | 0 | / |
| APB in RD | 0 | / | / | 0 | 0 | / | −5 | / | 0 | 0 | / | 0 | 0 | / | |
| RM in RD | 0 | / | / | 0 | 0 | / | 0 | / | 0 | 0 | / | 0 | 0 | / | |
| Step3: range of ratio | ADM in UD | −3 | −3 | −2 | −3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||||||
| APB in RD | 0 | −3 | −4 | −5 | 0 | −5 | −2 | ||||||||
| RM in RD | 0 | 0 | −1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||||||
Evaluation scores from both clinical assessment and the proposed method for all three examined nerves of all subjects.