Bibliographic record
Abstract
Glenohumeral contact forces have only been calculated previously either for simple abduction or for athletic activities. The objective of this study was to determine the glenohumeral contact forces for tasks which are demanding of the shoulder but which would commonly be performed by older people. The functional tasks chosen were using the arms to stand up from and sit down into a chair, walking with a cane, lifting a 5 kg box to shoulder height with both hands, and lifting a 10 kg suitcase. The trunk angles, arm angles and hand loads of six healthy subjects, average age 55 years, were recorded. This information was input into a biomechanical computer model which optimized the muscle force distribution by minimizing the sum of squared muscle stresses subject to constraints on the maximum muscle forces and maintaining the direction of the resultant force within the glenoid fossa. Average contact forces ranged from 1.3 to 2.4 times body weight (930-1720 N), the highest force being for lifting a suitcase. This latter value would be even higher if lifting either a greater load or to a greater height. Thus, contact forces at the shoulder should not be underestimated. This study provides functionally relevant contact forces which can be used for mechanical testing or finite element modelling of shoulder prostheses.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".