A Comparison of Glenoid Morphology and Glenohumeral Range of Motion Between Professional Baseball Pitchers With and Without a History of SLAP Repair
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: We sought to examine the relation among glenoid morphology, glenohumeral range of motion (ROM), and history of shoulder injury in professional baseball pitchers. METHODS: We studied 58 professional baseball pitchers. Internal rotation (IR) and external rotation (ER) ROM was measured at 90° of abduction. Horizontal adduction (HAdd) ROM was also measured. Glenoid superior inclination and glenoid retroversion (GRV) were then measured radiographically. Separate mixed-model analyses of variance were used to compare dependent measures between the dominant and nondominant shoulders of pitchers with or without a history of SLAP repair. Significant interaction effects were interpreted by use of a test for simple main effects (α = .05). RESULTS: GRV was significantly greater on the dominant side (8.7° ± 5.6°) versus nondominant side (5.5° ± 5.2°) (P = .001), whereas glenoid superior inclination was equivalent (99.5° ± 4.3° for dominant side v 99.2° ± 4.4° for nondominant side, P = .853). Post hoc analysis indicated that pitchers with a history of SLAP repair did not display an adaptive increase in dominant GRV compared with nondominant GRV (P = .016). There were no statistical differences between groups for ER (P = .29), IR (P = .39), or HAdd (P = .39). The dominant shoulder displayed greater ER (mean increase, 6.2° ± 12.2°) with a complementary decrease in IR (mean decrease, 5.8° ± 13.2°) and HAdd (mean decrease, 8.9° ± 13.7°) compared with the nondominant side. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that the development of increased GRV in the dominant shoulder of professional baseball pitchers may be a protective adaptive change not reflected in glenohumeral ROM measures. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, therapeutic case series.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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".