Humeral Retroversion and Capsule Thickening in the Overhead Throwing Athlete: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To investigate the humeral and soft-tissue adaptations, including humeral retroversion, range of motion, and posterior capsule changes, in overhead throwing athletes. METHODS: We performed a systematic review in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. PubMed, MEDLINE, CENTRAL (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials), and Embase were searched from January 1, 2011, through April 23, 2017, by 2 reviewers independently and in duplicate. The methodologic quality of all included articles was assessed using the Methodological Index for Non-randomized Studies criteria. Interobserver agreement for assessments of eligibility was calculated with the Cohen κ statistic. Descriptive statistics and raw counts were used to summarize data. RESULTS: We identified 14 studies (6 Level IV and 8 Level III) including 1,152 overhead throwing athletes. The mean age of the included athletes was 18.37 years (standard deviation, 1.52 years), with 59% of the athletes being pitchers and 41% being position players. Significantly greater humeral retroversion was found across all studies evaluating bony morphology in the dominant arm of overhead throwing athletes (range of mean differences, 9.6°-25.8°). Each of these studies also found decreased internal rotation in the dominant arm (range of mean internal rotation differences, -28° to -7.8°). Five studies found a significant negative correlation between the difference in humeral retroversion between the 2 arms and the difference in internal rotation (range of Pearson correlation coefficients, -0.56 to -0.35). Soft-tissue adaptations were assessed in 5 studies, with 4 identifying significantly thicker posterior capsules and 2 identifying significantly stiffer posterior capsules (P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: Overhead throwing athletes consistently show several distinct changes in their dominant shoulder. These include increased humeral retroversion and the presence of a thickened and stiff posterior capsule. Concomitantly, there is often reduced internal rotation and increased external rotation of the dominant arm. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, systematic review of Level III and IV studies.
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 | 0.008 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| 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".