Factors Predicting Postoperative Range of Motion and Muscle Strength one Year after Shoulder Arthroplasty.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Shoulder arthroplasty improves shoulder range of motion (ROM), strength and function in patients with advanced shoulder disease. However, clinical outcomes vary and are not always predictable among patients. Pre-operative factors and patients' characteristics may influence improvement after surgery. This study examined the impact of the pre-operative objective measures range of motion (ROM) and strength, age, sex, and comorbidities on shoulder ROM, strength status and the amount of improvement one year following shoulder arthroplasty. METHODS: 140 patients were assessed pre-operatively and one year after shoulder arthroplasty in this prospective cohort study. Pearson's correlations and multiple regression analyses were performed to test the impact of potential predictors on abduction, flexion, internal rotation and external rotation ROM as well as on shoulder abductors, flexors, internal rotators and external rotators strength at one year. RESULTS: Pre-operative ROM significantly predicted 10% - 37% of the improvement in ROM after surgery. Less pre-operative ROM was associated with a greater improvement in ROM. Less pre-operative muscle strength was associated with a greater improvement in strength after surgery. Pre-operative shoulder muscles predicted 28% - 38% of the strength status at one year, and 24% - 43% of the improvement in strength postoperatively. Older age was associated with less improvement in ROM and strength at one year. With other predictors, age explained 37% of the change in ROM and 36% of the change in strength. Male sex was associated with greater improvement in muscle strength. Sex significantly predicted 24% - 36% of the change in strength. CONCLUSION: Pre-operative ROM and strength, age, and sex are significant predictors of the improvement in the shoulder ROM and strength one year after shoulder arthroplasty. The improvement in these measures is expected to decline with age and men are expected to gain more strength than women following this surgical intervention.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".