Shoulder Musculoskeletal Disorder Rehabilitation Using a Robotic Device Based on Emg Biofeedback: A Retrospective Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While shoulder injuries represent the musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) most encountered in physical therapy, there is no consensus on their management. As attempts to provide standardized and personalized treatment, a robot-ic-assisted device combined with EMG biofeedback specifically dedicated to shoulder MSDs has been developed. The aim of this study was to determine the efficacy of an 8-week rehabilitation program (≈3 sessions a week) using a ro-botic-assisted device combined with EMG biofeedback (RA-EMG group) in comparison with a conventional program (CONV group) in patients presenting with shoulder MSDs. This study is a retrospective cohort study including data from 2010 to 2013 on patients initially involved in a physical rehabilitation program in a private clinic of Chicoutimi (Canada) for shoulder MSDs. Shoul-der flexion strength and range of motion were collected before and after the rehabilitation program. Forty-four patients participated in a conventional pro-gram using dumbbell (CONV group) while 72 of them completed a program on robot-assisted device with EMG and visual biofeedback (RA-EMG group), whereby both programs consisted in 2 sets of 20 repetitions at 60% of maximal capacity. Results showed that the RA-EMG had significantly greater benefits than the Conv group for shoulder flexion strength (+103.1% vs 67%, p = 0.016) and range of motion (+14.4% vs 6.1%, p = 0.046). The current retrospective co-hort study showed that a specific and tailored rehabilitation program with constant effort by automatic adjustment of the level of resistance was able to potentiate strength and range of motion shoulder flexion after an 8-week reha-bilitation period in comparison with a conventional approach in patients with shoulder MSDs. This study provides new insight on shoulder MSD rehabilita-tion and future research should be pursued to determine the added potential of this approach for abduction and external rotation with a randomized controlled design.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".