Effect of axis alignment on<i>in vivo</i>shoulder kinematics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND. To describe 3D shoulder joint movements, the International Society of Biomechanics (ISB) recommends using segment coordinate systems (SCSs) on the humerus, scapula and thorax, and joint coordinate systems (JCSs) on the shoulder. However, one of the remaining problems is how to define the zero angles when the arm is in an initial reference position. The aim of this paper is to compare various methods of determining the JCSs of the shoulder that make it possible to define the zero angles of the arm in the resting position. METHODS. Able-bodied subjects performed elevation movements in the scapular plane, specifically neutral, internal and external rotations of the humerus. The initial humerus position (at the beginning of the arm movement) and range of motion were analysed for the purpose of clinical interpretation of arm attitude and movement. The following four different JCSs were explored: (1) the standard JCS, defined as recommended by the ISB, (2) a first aligned JCS, where the humerus SCS is initially aligned with the scapula SCS, (3) a second aligned JCS, where the opposite operation is performed and 4) a third aligned JCS, where both the humerus and the scapular SCS are initially aligned with the thorax SCS. FINDINGS. The second aligned JCS was the only method that did not produce any exaggerated range of movement in either anatomical plane. INTERPRETATION. Mathematical JCS alignment allows clearer clinical interpretation of arm attitude and movement.
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".