Kinetic strategies of patients with shoulder impingement syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Our aim was to determine whether subjects with shoulder impingement syndrome (SIS) have abnormal multijoint torque patterns compared to healthy subjects during normalized isometric force along specific directions. Subjects had to generate an isometric force corresponding to 40% of the maximal pain-free force. Eight targets were displayed on a monitor (0, 45, 90, 135, 180, 225, 270, and 315 degrees ). We calculated shoulder and elbow torques (kinetic strategies) using a biomechanical model. Regardless of the target location, the SIS group succeeded in reaching the target; however, when compared to the healthy subjects, they needed more time to do so, suggesting that SIS may slow down the execution of the kinetic strategies. Moreover, the SIS group produced lower shoulder external/internal torque to reach the targets located at 0 degrees and 225 degrees, and they generated greater abduction/adduction torque for targets located at 0, 135, and 180 degrees. In addition, they had lower elbow extension/flexion torque for the target located at 315 degrees. The investigation of atypical kinetic strategies is essential to provide an understanding of the pathomechanics of the SIS and to develop more effective treatment strategies.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".