Acromiohumeral distance in a seated position in persons with impingement syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the acromiohumeral distance (AHD) of both shoulders in subjects with a unilateral shoulder impingement syndrome (SIS) and healthy subjects in a seated position during free shoulder movements of large amplitude. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using a 0.5-Tesla SIGNA-SP/i trade mark open-configuration magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) system, the AHD was measured at several arm positions, in a standardized seated position. RESULTS: In flexion (rest to 130 degrees ), the mean AHD of SIS varied from 8.3 to 2.8 mm, as compared to from 8.7 to 4.1 mm for asymptomatic contralateral shoulders. In abduction (rest to 110 degrees ), the AHD varied from 8.1 to 3.4 mm and from 8.8 to 4.6 mm for SIS and asymptomatic shoulders, respectively. The smallest AHD (P <.01) was observed at 110 degrees. From 80 degrees of arm elevation, the AHD was significantly smaller in impingement than in asymptomatic shoulders (P <.05). The AHD of asymptomatic shoulders did not differ from that of healthy subjects. In SIS, the AHD at rest was correlated with its reduction at all shoulder positions (r(p) = 0.62-0.88), but was a poor predictor of the smallest AHD observed at 110 degrees (flexion, R(2) = 0.09; abduction, R(2) = 0.08). CONCLUSION: In the critical arm elevation positions for impingement, AHD is discriminative for SIS, compared to asymptomatic shoulders and healthy ones. AHD at rest is a good indicator of the magnitude of its reduction in elevation, but not of the smallest AHD in arm elevation.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".