Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives Rotator cuff-related shoulder pain (RCRSP) is a common upper limb complaint. It has been suggested that this condition is more common among people with cardiometabolic risk factors. This systematic review has synthesised evidence from case–control, cross-sectional and cohort studies on the association between metabolic syndrome (MetS) and RCRSP. Design and data sources Five medical databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, SCOPUS, CINAHL and AMED) and reference checking methods were used to identify all relevant English articles that considered MetS and RCRSP. Studies were appraised using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). Two reviewers performed critical appraisal and data extraction. Narrative synthesis was performed via content analysis of statistically significant associations. Results Three cross-sectional, two case–control and one cohort study met the inclusion criteria, providing a total of 1187 individuals with RCRSP. Heterogeneity in methodology and RCRSP or MetS definition precluded a meaningful meta-analysis. Four of the included studies identified associations between the prevalence of MetS and RCRSP. Studies consistently identified independent cardiometabolic risk factors associated with RCRSP. All studies were level III evidence. Summary and conclusion The low-moderate quality evidence included in this review suggests an association between MetS and RCRSP. Most studies demonstrated moderate quality on appraisal. The direction of association and cardiometabolic factors influencing should be investigated by longitudinal and treatment studies. These preliminary conclusions and clinical utility should be treated with caution due to limitations of the evidence base.
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 | 0.122 | 0.453 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.021 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.021 | 0.027 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.065 | 0.050 |
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".