ULTRASONOGRAPHIC MEASUREMENT OF ACROMIO-HUMERAL DISTANCE VARIATION DURING SHOULDER ABDUCTION
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous imaging and electromyographic studies suggested that significant variations of the acromiohumeral distance (AHD) occur during the first 60° of shoulder abduction. Although ultrasonography (US) provides the advantage of real-time imaging, its potential for measurement of AHD variation is poorly documented. PURPOSE To measure inter-observer reliability of the US measurement of the AHD at rest and during active abduction. METHODOLOGY: The AHD at the inlet of the subacromial space was defined as the smallest tangential distance between the humeral head surface and the lateral tip of the acromion on a sonogram (7.5 MHz linear probe) along the longitudinal axis of the humerus. Measures were obtained at rest (0° abduction) and during active abduction at 45° and 60°. Two independent observers evaluated 13 healthy subjects (34,0 years ± 9,6). Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) were used to assess reliability and ANOVA to compare AHD measured at different positions. RESULTS Excellent ICC for interobserver reliability were obtained and statistically significant 16% and 23% reductions of AHD were observed at 45° and 60°, respectively (table 1).Table 1: Variation and inter-observer reliability of AHD during shoulder abduction (n=13).CONCLUSION The US measurement of the AHD at the inlet of the sub-acromial space is a reliable and sensitive measure. In agreement with previous studies, a significant progressive narrowing of the AHD was observed during the early phase of abduction. The use of ultrasonography for the kinematic evaluation of patients suffering from shoulder impingement syndrome deserves further attention. (FD is supported by REPAR, FRSQ and OPPQ)
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 | 0.005 |
| 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".