Effect of axis alignment on<i>in vivo</i>shoulder kinematics
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 it