OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the activity and relationship between surface EMG and static force from the BB muscle in terms of three sensor placement locations.
METHODS: Twenty-one right hand dominant male subjects (age 25.3±1.2 years) participated in the study. Surface EMG signals were detected from the subject's right BB muscle. The muscle activation during force was determined as the root mean square (RMS) electromyographic signal normalized to the peak RMS EMG signal of isometric contraction for 10 s. The statistical analysis included linear regression to examine the relationship between EMG amplitude and force of contraction [40-100% of maximal voluntary contraction (MVC)], repeated measures ANOVA to assess differences among the sensor placement locations, and coefficient of variation (CoV) for muscle activity variation.
RESULTS: The results demonstrated that when the sensor was placed on the muscle belly, the linear slope coefficient was significantly greater for EMG versus force testing (r2=0.62, P<0.05) than when placed on the lower part (r2=0.31, P>0.05) and upper part of the muscle belly (r2=0.29, P<0.05). In addition, the EMG signal activity on the muscle belly had less variability than the upper and lower parts (8.55% vs. 15.12% and 12.86%, respectively).
CONCLUSION: These findings indicate the importance of applying the surface EMG sensor at the appropriate locations that follow muscle fiber orientation of the BB muscle during static contraction. As a result, EMG signals of three different placements may help to understand the difference in the amplitude of the signals due to placement.
OBJECTIVES: This study was aimed to explore the occurrence of anxiety, depression and to identify the factors associated with hospital readmission among older patients after AECOPD discharge.
METHODS: A multicentre prospective study was conducted in Malaysia (from 1st September 2012 till 31st September 2013) among older patients (≥60 years) hospitalised for AECOPD. Anxiety and depression were assessed on discharge using previously validated questionnaires, Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 (GAD-7 and Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS-15), respectively. Patients were followed up for a period of 3 months after discharge.
RESULTS: A total of 81 patients with a median age of 72 years (IQR 66.40-78.00) were recruited. Anxiety was observed in 34.57% while 38.27% had depression. Both anxiety and depression were detected in 25.93% of the patients. A history of frequent AECOPD admissions was found to be associated with developing depressive symptoms, while anxiety scores were associated with severe dyspnoea. Severe depression was more commonly identified among patients aged 60-75 and in those with a history of tuberculosis. A high readmission rate (40.74%) during the 3-month period was noticed. History of frequent AECOPD admissions (OR = 2.87; 95% CI 1.05-7.85, P = 0.040) and ischemic heart disease (IHD) (OR = 4.04; 95% CI 1.1-14.6, P = 0.032) were identified as the factors associated with the risk of hospital readmission.
CONCLUSIONS: Anxiety and depression were found to be relatively common among older patients with AECOPD. IHD and history of frequent COPD hospitalisation were associated with short-term readmission among the elderly.
METHODS AND RESULTS: Analysis of publicly available DLBCL microarray data sets showed that TRPM4 transcripts were up-regulated in DLBCL compared to normal germinal centre B (GCB) cells, were expressed more highly in the activated B cell-like DLBCL (ABC-DLBCL) subtype and higher TRPM4 transcripts conferred worse overall survival (OS) in R-CHOP (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine and prednisone)-treated DLBCL cases (P < 0.05). Our immunohistochemical analysis showed that TRPM4 was expressed in various human tissues but not in normal B cells within lymphoid tissues (reactive tonsil, lymph node and appendix). TRPM4 protein was present in 26% (n = 49 of 189) of our cohort of R-CHOP-treated DLBCL cases and this was associated significantly with more aggressive clinical parameters, including higher lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) scores or stage (P < 0.01 for each of the parameters) and the ABC-DLBCL subtype (P = 0.016). TRPM4 positivity conferred significantly worse OS (P = 0.004) and progression-free survival (PFS) (P = 0.005). Worse OS remained associated significantly with TRPM4 positivity in multivariate analysis, including higher International Prognostic Index (IPI) or the non-GCB DLBCL phenotype (P < 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: TRPM4 protein expression is up-regulated in DLBCL cases compared to non-malignant B cells with preferential expression in ABC-DLBCL cases, and it confers significantly poorer DLBCL patient outcomes.