MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3207152610 · doi:10.1177/19417381211043849

Regional Electromyography of the Infraspinatus and Supraspinatus Muscles During Standing Isometric External Rotation Exercises

2021· article· en· W3207152610 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueSports Health A Multidisciplinary Approach · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicShoulder Injury and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of SaskatchewanUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsIsometric exerciseRotator cuffElectromyographyMedicinePhysical medicine and rehabilitationSupraspinatus muscleRehabilitationExternal rotationPhysical therapyAnatomySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Whole-muscle electromyography (EMG) data of the rotator cuff support external rotation (ER) strengthening exercises during shoulder rehabilitation. However, distinct neuroanatomic regions in the supraspinatus and infraspinatus exist. Differences in regional muscle activity occur during rehabilitation exercises, but little information is available for ER exertions. Hypothesis: Regional infraspinatus and supraspinatus muscle activity during standing ER exertions will differ with posture and intensity. Study Design: Descriptive laboratory study. Level of Evidence: Level 5. Methods: Twenty healthy individuals (12 men, 8 women) participated. Fine wire electrodes were inserted into 2 supraspinatus and 3 infraspinatus muscle regions. EMG data were recorded during standing isometric ER exertions at 2 intensities (maximal, submaximal) and in 7 postures defined by the angle (0°, 30°, 90°) and plane (abduction, scaption, flexion) of arm elevation. EMG data were normalized to maximum voluntary isometric contraction (% MVIC) to examine the influences of posture, intensity and their interaction on muscle activity. Results: Superior infraspinatus activity was higher in 0° of elevation (50.9% ± 5.7% MVIC) versus 30° of flexion (37.4% ± 3.9% MVIC) at maximal intensity. Inferior infraspinatus activity was higher in 90° of scaption (max = 59.8% ± 2.8% MVIC, submax = 29.4% ± 1.9% MVIC) versus 0° of elevation (max = 42.3% ± 4.5% MVIC, submax = 22.4% ± 2.8% MVIC) ( P = 0.02, P = 0.05, respectively). Anterior supraspinatus activity was highest in 90° of adbuction (max = 61.6% ± 3.1% MVIC; submax = 39.1% ± 3.8% MVIC) and lowest in 30° of flexion (max = 29.0% ± 3.4% MVIC, submax = 15.6% ± 1.7% MVIC) and 90° of flexion (max = 34.6% ± 2.4% MVIC, submax = 14.8% ± 1.9% MVIC). Posterior suprasptinatus activity was lowest in 0° of elevation (34.2% ± 3.0% MVIC), 30° of flexion (33.0% ± 3.6% MVIC) and highest in 90° of abduction (56.2% ± 4.1% MVIC) and 90° of scaption (46.7% ± 2.8% MVIC) (all Ps < 0.04). Conclusion: Regional infraspinatus and supraspinatus muscle activity differed with posture and intensity. Superior and middle infraspinatus muscle activities were similar across postures, but inferior infraspinatus activity was highest in 90° of arm elevation. Anterior and posterior supraspinatus activities were higher in the abduction and scaption planes, especially at 90° of elevation, as compared with the flexion plane. Clinical Relevance: In shoulder rehabilitation of supraspinatus tendon injuries, ER exercises in the flexion plane challenge the whole infraspinatus muscle and require lower supraspinatus muscle activity.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.687

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.286 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it