Validity of the Supraspinatus Test as a Single Clinical Test in Diagnosing Patients With Rotator Cuff Pathology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: Prospective blinded comparison of clinical examination and surgical findings of consecutive patients seen at a tertiary shoulder center. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the validity of the supraspinatus test in diagnosing rotator cuff pathology using arthroscopy or open surgery as reference standards. A positive supraspinatus test was defined as pain for all types of rotator cuff pathology and weakness for full-thickness tears. BACKGROUND: Rotator cuff tenopathy is a very common condition. However, there have been relatively few studies documenting the validity of physical examination for this condition and further investigation of the measurement properties of these tests is warranted. METHODS AND MEASURES: One hundred two consecutive subjects were examined. Fifty subjects, ranging in age between 24 and 79 years (mean age, 50 years; SD, 14.4 years) and composed of 16 females and 34 males, underwent surgery. RESULTS: The sensitivity of the supraspinatus test was 62%, 41%, and 88% for "supraspinatus tendonitis or partial thickness tear," "full-thickness tear," and "large to massive tears," respectively. The specificity values were 54%, 70%, and 70% for the above conditions, respectively. The negative likelihood ratios varied from 0.17 to 0.84, and the positive likelihood ratios varied from 1.35 to 2.93, depending on the presence of pain or weakness. CONCLUSION: Application of the supraspinatus test in isolation is helpful in diagnosing large or massive rotator cuff tears. The change that this test makes in pretest probability of less extensive rotator cuff pathology is insignificant.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".