The diagnostic power of motor unit potential analysis: An objective Bayesian approach

Muscle and Nerve

Volumn 22, Issue 5, 1999, Pages 584-591

  Pfeiffer, G ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER HAMBURG EPPENDORF   (Germany)

Author keywords

Bayes theorem; Discriminant analysis; Electromyography; Motor unit potential

Indexed keywords

AMYOTROPHIC LATERAL SCLEROSIS; ARTICLE; BAYES THEOREM; CONTROLLED STUDY; DISCRIMINANT ANALYSIS; ELECTROMYOGRAPHY; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MATHEMATICAL MODEL; MOTOR NEURON DISEASE; MOTOR UNIT POTENTIAL; MYOPATHY; MYOTONIC DYSTROPHY; PRIORITY JOURNAL;

ACTION POTENTIALS; AMYOTROPHIC LATERAL SCLEROSIS; BAYES THEOREM; DIAGNOSIS, DIFFERENTIAL; ELECTROMYOGRAPHY; EVOKED POTENTIALS, MOTOR; HUMANS; MOTOR NEURONS; MYOSITIS; MYOTONIC DYSTROPHY; POLYNEUROPATHIES; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SAMPLE SIZE; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

EID: 0032906749     PISSN: 0148639X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-4598(199905)22:5<584::AID-MUS6>3.0.CO;2-0     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. Andreassen S, Jensen FV, Andersen SK, Falck B, Kjaerulff U, Woldbye M, Sorensen AR, Rosenfalck A, Jensen F. MUNIN -an expert EMG assistant. In: Desmedt JE, editor. Computer-aided electromyography and expert systems. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 1989. p 255-277.
2. Blinowska KJ, Hausmanova-Petrusiewicz I, Miller-Larson A, Zachara JZ. The analysis of single EMG potentials by means of multivariate methods. Electromyogr Clin Neurophysiol 1980; 20:105-123.
3. Buchthal F. An introduction to electromyography. Copenhagen: Scandinavian University Books; 1957.
4. Daube JR. The description of motor unit potentials in electromyography. Neurology 1978;28:623-625.
5. Emeryk-Szajewska B, Kopec J, Karwanska A. The reorganization of motor units in motor neuron disease. Muscle Nerve 1997;20:306-315.
6. Engel WK. Brief, small, abundant motor-unit action potentials. A further critique of electromyographic interpretation. Neurology 1975;25:173-176.
7. Engstrom JW, Olney RK. Quantitative motor unit analysis: the effect of sample size. Muscle Nerve 1992;15:277-281.
8. Fuglsang-Fredericksen A, Johnson B, Vingthoft S, Carvalho M, Fawcett P, Ligouri R, Nix W, Schofield I, Veloso M, Vila A. Variation of performance of the EMG examination at six European laboratories. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 1995;97:444-450.
9. Fuglsang-Fredericksen A, Ronager J. EMG power spectrum, turns-amplitude analysis and motor unit potential duration in neuromuscular disorders. J Neurol Sci 1990;97:81-91.
10. Garrault G, Toulouse P, Coatrieux JL. Lateral amyotrophic sclerosis versus Guillain-Barré syndrome: an attempt of differentiation by automatic EMG classification. Electromyogr Clin Neurophysiol 1987;27:209-215.
11. Gath IO, Sjaastad O, Loken AC. Myopathic electromyographic changes correlated with histopathology in Wohlfahrt-Kugelberg-Welander disease. Neurology 1969;19: 344-352.
12. Hamilton PW, Anderson N, Bartels BH, Tompson D. Expert system support using Bayesian belief networks in the diagnosis of fine needle aspiration biopsy specimens of the breast. J Clin Pathol 1994;47:329-336.
13. Hardiman O, Halperin JJ, Farrell MA, Shapiro BE, Wray SH, Brown RH. Neuropathic findings in oculopharyngeal muscular dystrophy. Arch Neurol 1993;50:481-488.
14. Hausmanova-Petrusewicz I, Karwanska A. Electromyographic findings in different forms of infantile and juvenile proximal spinal muscular atrophy. Muscle Nerve 1986;9:37-46.
15. Hausmanova-Petrusewicz I, Wierzbicka M, Jozwik A, Szmidt-Salkowska E, Borkowska J. A nearest neighbour decision rule for EMG detection of carriers of Duchenne muscular dystrophy. Electromyogr Clin Neurophysiol 1982; 22:445-457.
16. Henriksson K-G, Stalberg E. The terminal innervation pattern in polymyositis: a histochemical and SFEMG study. Muscle Nerve 1978;1:3-13.
17. Kuncl RW, Cornblath DR, Griffin JW. Assessment of thoracic paraspinal muscles in the diagnosis of ALS. Muscle Nerve 1988;11:484-492.
18. Lofgren RP. The dynamic nature of sensitivity and specificity [editorial]. J Gen Intern Med 1987;2:452-453.
19. Luciano CA, Dalakas MC. Inclusion body myositis: no evidence for a neurogenic component. Neurology 1997;48: 29-33.
20. McGill KC, Lau K, Dorfman LJ. A comparison of turns analysis and motor unit analysis in electromyography. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 1991;81:8-17.
21. Mechler F. Changing electromyographic findings during the chronic course of polymyositis. J Neurot Sci 1974;23:237-242.
22. Mendel JM. Fuzzy logic systems and qualitative knowledge. In: Arbib MA, editor. The handbook of brain theory and neural networks. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 1995. p 410-413.
23. Miettinen OS, Caro JJ. Foundations of medical diagnosis: what actually are the parameters involved in Bayes' theorem? Stat Med 1994;13:201-209.
24. Nandedkar SD, Sanders DB. Simulation of myopathic motor unit action potentials. Muscle Nerve 1989; 12:97-202.
25. Nandedkar SD, Sanders DB. Principal component analysis of the features of concentric needle EMG motor unit action potentials. Muscle Nerve 1989;12:288-293.
26. Nandedkar SD, Sanders DB, Stalberg E. EMG of reinnervated motor units. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 1988;70: 177-184.
27. Pfeiffer G. Performance of discriminant motor unit potential classification in myositis: an attempt at objective EMG differential diagnosis. Z EEG-EMG 1996; 27:70-75.
28. Pfeiffer G, Kunze K. Turn and phase counts of individual motor unit potentials: correlation and reliability. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 1992;85:161-165.
29. Pfeiffer G, Kunze K. Frequency analysis and duration of motor unit potentials: reliability and diagnostic usefulness. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 1993; 89:365-374.
30. Pfeiffer G, Kunze K. Discriminant classification of motor unit potentials (MUPs) successfully separates neurogenic and myogenic conditions. A comparison of multi- and univariate diagnostic algorithms for MUP analysis. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 1995;97:191-207.
31. Schulzer M. Diagnostic tests: a statistical review. Muscle Nerve 1994;17:815-819.
32. Sonoo M, Stalberg E. The ability of MUP parameters to discriminate between normal and neurogenic MUPs in concentric EMG: analysis of the MUP "thickness" and the proposal of "size index." Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 1993;89: 291-303.
33. Spitzer AR, Wang C, Luo J, Ward DO, Hassoun MH. Quantitative computer analysis of the sounds of isolated motor unit action potentials. Neurology 1992;42:868-874.
34. Stalberg E. Invited review. Electrodiagnostic assessment and monitoring of motor unit changes in disease. Muscle Nerve 1991;14:293-303.
35. Stalberg E, Andreassen S, Falck B, Lang H, Rosenfalck A, Trojaborg W. Quantitative analysis of individual motor unit potentials: a proposition for standardized terminology and criteria for measurement. J Clin Neurophysiol 1986;3: 313-348.
36. Tversky A, Kahnemann D. Judgement under uncertainity: heuristics and biases. Science 1974;185:1124-1131.
37. Wilbourn AJ. The electrodiagnostic examination with myopathies.J Clin Neurophysiol 1993; 10:132-148.