Shoulder Motion Analysis During Codman Pendulum Exercises
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To quantify shoulder motion during Codman pendulum exercises. METHODS: Shoulder kinematics were analyzed in 17 healthy volunteers using a validated biomechanical model coupling patient-specific imaging and motion capture. Participants were instructed to perform medio-lateral, antero-posterior and circular pendulum exercises. Glenohumeral (GH), scapulothoracic (ST), thoracohumeral (TH) ROM and overall exercise amplitude were calculated for each sequence. Linear regression analyses were carried out to determine association between different components of shoulder motion. RESULTS: Mean overall exercise amplitude was 40.59±11.24° (range, 25.38 to 70.25°) for medio-lateral exercises, 46.5±22.02° (range, 20.68 to 100.24°) for antero-posterior exercises, and 20.28±7.13° (range, 10.9 to 35.49°) for circular exercises. Mean GH and ST involvement remained minimal, ranging from 6.74 to 13.81°, and 1.5° to 5.12°, respectively. There was no significant correlation between overall exercise amplitude and GH (R = 0.31, p = 0.01) or ST ROM (adjusted R2 = 0.57, p < 0.001), but a moderate correlation with TH ROM (R = 0.73, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that Codman pendulum exercises depend mainly on truncal movement and produce very little movement in the GH and ST joints. Although they may be a safe way to promote early general stretching of the upper limb, they may be of limited further use in restoring passive shoulder ROM. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This study quantifies motion during frequently administered shoulder rehabilitation exercises and shows that they do not produce significant movement in the shoulder. Their use in restoring passive range of motion is thus questionable.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".