The effect of intracortical bone pin on shoulder kinematics during dynamic activities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Intracortical bone pins are introduced as gold standard for analysing skeletal motion because of eliminating soft tissue artefact. However, excluding this methodological error might be in cost of intervening movement pattern by local anaesthesia and pain of external tool within body. The purpose of this study was to examine whether intracortical bone pins alter shoulder joint kinematics or coordination. Three subjects were analysed during arm elevation/depression in frontal and sagittal planes. Retroreflective skin markers captured the motion in two sessions, before and after inserting bone pins (SKIN and PIN sessions), respectively. Thoracohumeral and scapulothoracic kinematics and scapulohumeral rhythm (SHR) were compared between two sessions. Thoracohumeral exhibited lower elevation and internal rotation in PIN session especially close to maximum arm elevation. The highest differences were observed for scapulothoracic kinematics, with higher retraction during abduction as well as higher posterior tilt, lateral rotation and retraction during flexion in PIN session. In addition, no systematic changes in SHR between subjects was found. Statistically significant lower SHR in PIN session was observed over 87-100% of thoracohumeral elevation/depression cycle in frontal plane and over 25-61% in sagittal plane. Further studies should treat carefully toward the clinical validity of shoulder joint kinematics after inserting bone pins.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".