Page 119 - Big Data Analytics for Intelligent Healthcare Management

112 CHAPTER 5 CHRONIC TTH ANALYSIS BY EMG AND GSR BIOFEEDBACK

Period Techniques, period
140 136.17 min EMGa, BaseLine
Subjects: 26
EMGa, 1 month
115.93 min
128.17 min EMGa, 3 months
120 Subjects: 27
Subjects: 27 EMGa, 6 months
EMGa, 12 months
91.13 min
TTH duration (in min) per cycle 80 Subjects: 26 Subjects: 24 Subjects: 23 Subjects: 21 GSRa, 3 months
GSRa, BaseLine
100
Subjects: 25
85.81 min
100.60 min
GSRa, 1 month
Subjects: 25
74.33 min
89.01 min
Subjects: 23
GSRa, 6 months
GSRa, 12 months
73.40 min
72.63 min
60
40
20
0
BaseLine 1 month 3 months 6 months 12 months
FIG. 5.11
Analysis of TTH duration per cycle per time.
GSRa: The rate of reduction of TTH pain duration per cycle tremendously increased when the ther-
apy of the subject was started then it slowed down in the next 6months and became stagnant until the
end of the experiment. The average reduction in TTH duration per cycle changed from 136.17 to
72.63min, i.e., 63.54min of improvement was recorded per cycle per subject.
EMGa: EMGa showed the results in similar spirit but the improvement rate was continuous in na-
ture from the start to end. This technique/therapy reduced the overall TTH duration per cycle from
128.17 to 74.33min per cycle per subject, i.e., the overall improvement of TTH duration per cycle
was 53.84min per subject.
From the above analysis, we can conclude that GSRa showed an overall better improvement
in the reduction of TTH duration per cycle per subject when compared to EMGa. But the rate
of improvement in TTH duration per cycle using GSRa in the last 6months was nearly
stagnant, which diminished the probability of further reducing the TTH duration per cycle. On
the other hand, EMGa showed a significant reduction rate in the last 6months, giving a possibility
to decrease it further. Therefore, in the longer run, EMGa will be a more beneficial therapy
than GSRa.

5.8.5 TREND ON CORRELATION OF TTH DURATION AND INTENSITY
This analysis is done to establish the relationship of duration of TTH pain of the subject with the
intensity of pain. Chronic intensity pain generally stays for a longer duration. Fig. 5.12 reveals the
interesting analysis of subjects’ TTH pain duration correlation with TTH pain intensity. The trends
observed are as follows: