Distinguishing normal, neuropathic and myopathic EMG with an automated machine learning approach

Tannemaat, M.R.; Kefalas, M.; Geraedts, V.J.; Remijn-Nelissen, L.; Verschuuren, A.J.M.; Koch, M.; Kononova, A.V.; Wang, H.; Bäck, T.H.W.

doi:doi:10.1016/j.clinph.2022.11.019

OBJECTIVE\nMETHODS\nRESULTS\nCONCLUSIONS\nSIGNIFICANCE\nDistinguishing normal, neuropathic and myopathic electromyography (EMG) traces can be challenging. We aimed to create an automated time series classification algorithm.\nEMGs of healthy controls (HC, n = 25), patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS, n = 20) and inclusion body myositis (IBM, n = 20), were retrospectively selected based on longitudinal clinical follow-up data (ALS and HC) or muscle biopsy (IBM). A machine learning pipeline was applied based on 5-second EMG fragments of each muscle. Diagnostic yield expressed as area under the curve (AUC) of a receiver-operator characteristics curve, accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity were determined per muscle (muscle-level) and per patient (patient-level).\nDiagnostic yield of the classification ALS vs. HC was: AUC 0.834 ± 0.014 at muscle-level and 0.856 ± 0.009 at patient-level. For the classification HC vs. IBM, AUC was 0.744 ± 0.043 at muscle-level and 0.735 ±...Show moreOBJECTIVE\nMETHODS\nRESULTS\nCONCLUSIONS\nSIGNIFICANCE\nDistinguishing normal, neuropathic and myopathic electromyography (EMG) traces can be challenging. We aimed to create an automated time series classification algorithm.\nEMGs of healthy controls (HC, n = 25), patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS, n = 20) and inclusion body myositis (IBM, n = 20), were retrospectively selected based on longitudinal clinical follow-up data (ALS and HC) or muscle biopsy (IBM). A machine learning pipeline was applied based on 5-second EMG fragments of each muscle. Diagnostic yield expressed as area under the curve (AUC) of a receiver-operator characteristics curve, accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity were determined per muscle (muscle-level) and per patient (patient-level).\nDiagnostic yield of the classification ALS vs. HC was: AUC 0.834 ± 0.014 at muscle-level and 0.856 ± 0.009 at patient-level. For the classification HC vs. IBM, AUC was 0.744 ± 0.043 at muscle-level and 0.735 ± 0.029 at patient-level. For the classification ALS vs. IBM, AUC was 0.569 ± 0.024 at muscle-level and 0.689 ± 0.035 at patient-level.\nAn automated time series classification algorithm can distinguish EMGs from healthy individuals from those of patients with ALS with a high diagnostic yield. Using longer EMG fragments with different levels of muscle activation may improve performance.\nIn the future, machine learning algorithms may help improve the diagnostic accuracy of EMG examinations.Show less

Leiden University Scholarly Publications

View statistics

Documents

In Collections

Distinguishing normal, neuropathic and myopathic EMG with an automated machine learning approach