The use of the impingement test as a predictor of outcome following subacromial decompression for rotator cuff tendinosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the use of the impingement test as a predictor of outcome following subacromial decompression for patients with rotator cuff tendinosis. TYPE OF STUDY: Observational study. METHODS: An impingement test was administered to each patient immediately before surgery. Patients underwent a subacromial decompression and were assessed postoperatively at 3 and 6 months. The primary outcome measure was the Western Ontario Rotator Cuff Index (WORC). RESULTS: Thirty patients (mean age, 47.0 years; range, 29.4 to 71.2 years) took part in this study. There was no significant correlation between the classic impingement test (Neer's impingement sign before and after subacromial injection of local anesthetic) and the change in WORC score (r = -.174, P =.358). Similar results were obtained for the aggregate impingement test (pain at rest plus Neer's impingement sign plus Hawkins sign plus resisted abduction) before and after subacromial injection of local anesthetic (r = -.208, P =.270). When divided into categories of improvement following the classic impingement test (worse 0%-25%, 26%-50%, 51%-75%, 76%-100% better), there was no significant difference between groups for outcome as indicated by WORC score (P =.203). Results were similar for the aggregate impingement test (P =.271). CONCLUSIONS: The impingement test is a poor tool for predicting the success of subacromial decompression. There are 6 assumptions discussed that must hold true in order for the impingement test to be a useful predictor of outcome following subacromial decompression. If one or more of these assumptions are not met, or are only partially met, the impingement test would be rendered invalid as a predictor of outcome, as this study suggests.
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 | 0.006 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".