Assessment of shoulder rotation strength, muscle co-activation and shoulder pain in tetraplegic wheelchair athletes – A methodological study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To develop a feasible protocol for testing maximum shoulder rotation strength in tetraplegic wheelchair athletes, and investigate concurrent validity of maximum isometric handheld dynamometer (HHD) towards maximum isokinetic dynamometer (ID) strength measurements; secondly, to study shoulder muscle activation during maximum shoulder rotation measurements, and the association between shoulder strength and shoulder pain.Design: Descriptive methodological.Setting: Danish Wheelchair Rugby (WCR) association for WCR tetraplegic athletes from local WCR-clubs.Participants: Twelve adult tetraplegics.Interventions: N/A.Outcome measures: Wheelchair User's Shoulder Pain Index (WUSPI) and Visual Analog Scale (VAS) measured shoulder pain, isometric HHD and ID (60°/s) measured maximum internal (IR) and external (ER) shoulder rotation strength. Surface Electromyography normalized to maximum EMG measured muscle activity (mm Infraspinatus and Latissimus Dorsi) during maximum shoulder rotation strength.Results: Concurrent validity of isometric HHD towards ID showed Concordance Correlation Coefficients of left and right arms 0.90 and 0.86 (IR), and 0.89 and 0.91 (ER), with no difference in muscle activity between isometric HHD and ID, but larger co-activation during ER. There was no association between shoulder strength and pain, except for significantly weak negative associations between ID and pain during ER for left and right arms (P = 0.03; P = 0.04).Conclusion: Standardized feasible protocol for tetraplegic wheelchair athletes for measuring maximum shoulder rotation strength was established. Isometric HHD is comparable with ID on normalized peak torques and muscle activity, but with larger co-activation. Strength was not clearly associated with shoulder pain.
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 | 0.020 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".