MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2913716010 · doi:10.33137/cpoj.v1i2.32043

CASE STUDY: THERMOPLASTIC SCAPULOTHORACIC ORTHOSIS FOR TREATMENT OF WINGING SCAPULA

2018· article· en· W2913716010 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Steven T. Brown, Gary S. Trexler

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Prosthetics & Orthotics Journal · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicShoulder and Clavicle Injuries
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScapulaRange of motionMedicinePhysical medicine and rehabilitationThermoplasticPhysical therapySurgeryMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION
 Winging scapula is a rare condition that can be painful and debilitating to the upper extremity involved1. This condition can affect the functional ability of the upper extremity, resulting in loss of range of motion, decreased power, and pain.1 The purpose of this study was to introduce and determine the clinical applicability of a custom thermoplastic scapulothoracic orthosis to aid in management of winging scapula. The thermoplastic scapulothoracic orthosis offers total contact and provides anterior-posterior compressive forces to stabilize the winging scapula. This design provides a semi-rigid structure that is lightweight and allows user adjustability. The study highlights the potential applicability of the custom thermoplastic scapulothoracic orthosis in the categories of pain, active range of motion at the shoulder, and overall self-reported activities of daily living.
 Abstract PDF Link: https://jps.library.utoronto.ca/index.php/cpoj/article/view/32043/24457
 How to cite: Brown S, Trexler G. CASE STUDY: THERMOPLASTIC SCAPULOTHORACIC ORTHOSIS FOR TREATMENT OF WINGING SCAPULA. CANADIAN PROSTHETICS & ORTHOTICS JOURNAL, VOLUME 1, ISSUE 2, 2018; ABSTRACT, ORAL PRESENTATION AT THE AOPA’S 101ST NATIONAL ASSEMBLY, SEPT. 26-29, VANCOUVER, CANADA, 2018. DOI: https://doi.org/10.33137/cpoj.v1i2.32043 
 Abstracts were Peer-reviewed by the American Orthotic Prosthetic Association (AOPA) 101st National Assembly Scientific Committee. 
 http://www.aopanet.org/

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.757
Threshold uncertainty score0.991

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.042
GPT teacher head0.387
Teacher spread0.345 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Prosthetics & Orthotics JournalSame topicShoulder and Clavicle InjuriesFrench-language works237,207