Musculoskeletal disorders of the upper extremity associated with computer work: A systematic review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The epidemiological literature is critically reviewed to evaluate the evidence supporting a causal relationship between computer work and musculoskeletal symptoms and disorders (MSDs) of the hand, wrist, forearm, and elbow. Since 1990, 33 publications were found that met the selection criteria –11 were prospective in design and 22 were cross-sectional. All prospective studies that measured extent of computer use found a positive association between computer work and upper extremity musculoskeletal symptoms. The two prospective studies to conduct physical examinations both found a relationship between hours of computer use and increased risk of upper extremity diagnoses. Of the 22 cross-sectional studies, 17 studies found positive associations. Two of the five studies reporting no association found increased risks of certain disorders under certain combinations of computer use and other factors. The remaining three studies were limited by either a small sample size or low variation of computer use hours within the study population. We conclude that there is consistent evidence of a positive relationship across numerous prospective and cross-sectional studies with increased risk most pronounced beyond 20 hours/week of computer use or with increasing years of computer work. The disorders confirmed with physical examinations are wrist tendonitis and tenosynovitis, medial and lateral epicondylitis, and DeQuervain's tenosynovitis. The risk of carpal tunnel syndrome is increased with use of a computer, especially with mouse use for more than 20 hours per week.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it