Rotator cuff unloading versus loading exercise program in the conservative treatment of patients with rotator cuff tear: protocol of a randomised controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Atraumatic and degenerative rotator cuff tears are common in individuals over 55 years of age. This condition can have a high impact on social life and is associated with chronic pain, weakness and dysfunction of the upper limb. There is evidence that conservative approaches should be the first treatment option. Conservative treatment usually addresses a variety of therapeutic behaviours without providing scientific arguments for the choice and progression of exercises. OBJECTIVE: To compare the effects of two different exercise programmes based on the load of the rotator cuff on a population with shoulder pain and rotator cuff tears. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a controlled, randomised, blinded clinical trial. Seventy-eight individuals with shoulder pain and presence of atraumatic and degenerative rotator cuff tear will participate and will be randomly distributed between two groups. The primary outcome will be quality of life (The Western Ontario Rotator Cuff Index), and secondary outcomes will include pain, function (Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand), fear avoidance beliefs (Fear Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire-Brazil), kinesiophobia (Tampa Scale), Pain Catastrophizing Scale, muscle strength of abductors, external and internal rotators of the shoulder, range of motion of arm elevation and patient satisfaction. The treatment will be performed for 12 weeks (2 x/week) acording to the selected group (Rotator Cuff Unloading x Rotator Cuff Loading Exercise Programme). ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study protocol was approved by the Institutional Review Board. The findings of the trial will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journals and scientific conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03962231.
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 | 0.046 | 0.048 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.021 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.053 | 0.009 |
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".