2022 Bern Consensus Statement on Shoulder Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation, and Return to Sport for Athletes at All Participation Levels
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Synopsis There is an absence of high-quality evidence to support rehabilitation and return-to-sport decisions following shoulder injuries in athletes. The Athlete Shoulder Consensus Group was convened to lead a consensus process that aimed to produce best-practice guidance for clinicians, athletes, and coaches for managing shoulder injuries in sport. We developed the consensus via a 2-round Delphi process (involving more than 40 content and methods experts) and an in-person meeting. This consensus statement provides guidance with respect to load and risk management, supporting athlete shoulder rehabilitation, and decision making during the return-to-sport process. This statement is designed to offer clinicians the flexibility to apply principle-based approaches to managing the return-to-sport process within a variety of sporting backgrounds. The principles and consensus of experts working across multiple sports may provide a template for developing additional sport-specific guidance in the future. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2022;52(1):11–28. doi:10.2519/jospt.2022.10952
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 | 0.096 | 0.162 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.014 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.013 |
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".