Chronic occupational repetitive strain injury.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To review common repetitive strain injuries (RSIs) that occur in the workplace, emphasizing diagnosis, treatment, and etiology of these conditions. QUALITY OF EVIDENCE: A MEDLINE search from January 1966 to June 1999 focused on articles published since 1990 because RSIs are relatively new diagnoses. MeSH headings that were explored using the thesaurus included "cumulative trauma disorder," "overuse injury," and "repetitive strain injury." The search was limited to English articles only, and preference was given to randomized controlled trials. MAIN MESSAGE: Repetitive strain injuries result from repeated stress to the body's soft tissue structures including muscles, tendons, and nerves. They often occur in patients who perform repetitive movements either in their jobs or in extracurricular activities. Common RSIs include tendon-related disorders, such as rotator cuff tendonitis, and peripheral nerve entrapment disorders, such as carpal tunnel syndrome. A careful history and physical examination often lead to the diagnosis, but newer imaging techniques, such as magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasound, can help in refractory cases. Conservative management with medication, physiotherapy, or bracing is the mainstay of treatment. Surgery is reserved for cases that do not respond to treatment. CONCLUSION: Repetitive strain injury is common; primary care physicians must establish a diagnosis and, more importantly, its relationship to occupation. Treatment can be offered by family physicians who refer to specialists for cases refractory to conservative management.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".