# Are Electromyography Data a Fingerprint for Patients with Cerebral Palsy (CP)?
## 3 Results

Table 4: Average GDI of the patients within each identified cluster pre- and post-operation, along with the assigned gait conditions. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Measure** & **Examination** & **Mean (SD)** &
\begin{tabular}{c} **95\% Confidence Interval** \\ **(Lower Bound–Upper Bound)** \\ \end{tabular} & **Sig.** \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{ND rectus femoris} & E1 & 1.51 (0.031) & 1.45–1.57 & \multirow{3}{*}{**<0.001**} \\  & E2 & 1.39 (0.028) & 1.34–1.45 & \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{ND vastus lateralis} & E1 & 1.45 (0.03) & 1.39–1.51 & \multirow{3}{*}{0.63} \\  & E2 & 1.43 (0.034) & 1.37–1.50 & \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{ND tibialis anterior} & E1 & 1.34 (0.027) & 1.29–1.39 & \multirow{3}{*}{0.19} \\  & E2 & 1.30 (0.025) & 1.25–1.35 & \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{ND gastrocnemius lateralis} & E1 & 1.19 (0.022) & 1.14–1.23 & \multirow{3}{*}{0.29} \\  & E2 & 1.15 (0.025) & 1.10–1.20 & \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{ND soleus} & E1 & 1.36 (0.028) & 1.30–1.41 & \multirow{3}{*}{**0.006**} \\  & E2 & 1.26 (0.025) & 1.21–1.31 & \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{ND biceps femoris} & E1 & 0.95 (0.024) & 0.91–1.00 & \multirow{3}{*}{0.76} \\  & E2 & 0.95 (0.022) & 0.90–0.99 & \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{ND semimembranosus} & E1 & 0.98 (0.027) & 0.92–1.03 & \multirow{3}{*}{0.15} \\  & E2 & 0.94 (0.023) & 0.89–0.98 & \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{EDI} & E1 & 82.2 (0.36) & 81.50–82.94 & \multirow{3}{*}{**<0.001**} \\  & E2 & 83.84 (0.38) & 83.10–84.59 & \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{EPS} & E1 & 73.60 (0.78) & 72.06–75.15 & \multirow{3}{*}{**<0.001**} \\  & E2 & 70.23 (0.75) & 68.75–71.72 & \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{DMC} & E1 & 79.72 (0.66) & 78.43–81.01 & \multirow{3}{*}{0.88} \\  & E2 & 79.63 (0.64) & 78.37–80.88 & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Pre-(E1) and post-operative (E2) norm-distance of the EMG activity of muscles and for EDI, EPS, and DMC. ND: norm-distance. For patients with severe pre-operative gait conditions (Table 5), all three responder groups experienced significant GDI improvements: 44, 30, and 14 units for good, mild, and poor responses, respectively. While gait and EMG indices (EDI and EPS) at E1 were consistent across these responders, DMC was significantly lower for patients with a poor response (Poor_to_Poor) compared to those with a good response (Poor_to_Good, 72.75 vs. 85.37, \(p\)-value < 0.001) and a mild response (Poor_to_Mild, 72.75 vs. 79.02, \(p\)-value = 0.004). EDI and EPS also improved from E1 to E2 across all responders, particularly for the mild ones (Poor_to_Mild, \(p\)-value < 0.001). Additionally, the improvement in gait for patients with moderate pre-operative gait issues was significant (Table 6). The mean DMC for the best responders (Mild_to_Good) was higher than that of the other two groups at E1, and the levels of EDI and EPS approached a TD level, although statistical significance was not demonstrated. Lastly, for patients with the highest GDI levels at E1, while the changes in gait were significant, seven patients (Good_to_Poor) experienced a reduction in GDI (increase in GPS), indicating an unsuccessful surgical outcome. They exhibited a decrease in EDI