Shoulder functional assessments in persons with chronic neck/shoulder pain and healthy subjects: Reliability and effects of movement repetition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Obtaining reliable functional capacity measures from injured workers is an essential part of the return to work (RTW) process. The present study compares shoulder functional outcomes between healthy individuals and others with neck/shoulder pain, assesses reliability and examines the influence of repetitive movements on shoulder function. METHODS: Subjects performed trials of flexion and abduction active range of motion (ROM), and cumulative power output (PO) in a pushing/pulling task on the Baltimore Therapeutic Equipment Simulator II in two consecutive sessions. Tasks were assessed before and after performing a repetitive arm task, during which heart rate (HR) was recorded, until scoring 8 on the Borg CR-10 scale or on a 11-point numeric rating scale (NRS) for pain. PARTICIPANTS: Persons with chronic neck/shoulder pain (intensity ≥ 3/10 for > 3 months) (n = 16) and an age- and sex-matched control group (n = 16). RESULTS: Functional shoulder measures demonstrated strong inter-session reliability, except PO in the pain group. Average repetitive task duration was shorter in the pain group (4 min vs. 7 min). CONCLUSIONS: The protocol detected both pain- and time-related impairments, with HR and PO being sensitive to movement duration and ROM to pain.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".