Evaluation of Two Support Methods for the Subluxated Shoulder of Hemiplegic Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One of the most troublesome complications in the rehabilitation of hemiplegic patients is inferior subluxation of the glenohumeral joint. The purpose of this study was to determine which of two shoulder supports, the Bobath shoulder roll or the Henderson shoulder ring, would be more effective in the management of hemiplegic patients with a subluxated glenohumeral joint. To determine the degree of subluxation and the amount of reduction after application of a shoulder support, radiographs were taken of 26 hemiplegic patients with subluxated shoulders. Radiographs of the unsupported affected shoulder were compared with radiographs of the same shoulder with each support applied. Radiographs of the unaffected shoulder were used as a comparison in determining the amount of subluxation. An analysis of variance revealed no significant difference in the reduction of inferior subluxation between the two types of shoulder support. A significant difference in subluxation, however, existed between measurements of the unsupported affected shoulder and the unaffected shoulder (p less than .001) and between measurements of the unsupported affected shoulder and the supported affected shoulder (p less than .001). The results of this study demonstrate the benefits of the Bobath shoulder roll and the Henderson shoulder ring in the management of hemiplegic patients with subluxated shoulders.
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 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".