Bibliographic record
Abstract
【Objectives : A number of instruments have been developed to measure the quality of life in patients with various shoulder disorders. Much progress has been made in this area, and currently an appropriate instrument exists for each shoulder state. The purpose of this study is to review the instruments that are currently in use for assessing the shoulder joint. Methods : A literature research was performed to choose appropriate scales for assessment of function and the disability of the shoulder. Theoretically based scales were selected for review. Therefore, 11 scales were reviewed. The status of scales involved in shoulder treatment of acupuncture throughout several countries was evaluated. Results : 11 scales: The American shoulder and elbow surgeons evaluation form(ASES), Constant Shoulder Score, The disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand(DASH), Shoulder Disability Questionnaire (SDQ), The Shoulder Pain And Disability index(SPADI), The simple shoulder test(SST), Oxford Shoulder Questionnaire(OSQ), The Rotator Cuff quality-of-life Measure(RC-QoL), Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index(WOSI), Western Ontario Osteoarthritis of the Shoulder Index(WOOS), Western Ontario Rotator Cuff Index(WORC), wereevaluated. Each measurement has its own composition and characteristics. Their validity, reliability, responsiveness and practical characteristics were already evaluated. We found 3 domestic and 10 overseas papers about shoulder treatments using acupuncture assessed with shoulder scales. Conclusions : In clinical research, the selection of the measurement scale should take account of the condition of disease, the patient's traits and the characteristics of the research. Moreover, appropriate scales, which havevalidity, reliability, responsiveness and practical characteristics, are needed to enhance the quality of research.】
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.033 | 0.007 |
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".