Physical and psychosocial work-related exposures and the occurrence of disorders of the elbow: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This systematic review updates a previous systematic review on work-related physical and psychosocial risk factors for elbow disorders. Medline, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Central and PsycINFO were searched for studies on associations between work-related physical or psychosocial risk factors and the occurrence of elbow disorders. Two independent reviewers selected eligible studies and assessed risk of bias (RoB). Results of studies were synthesized narratively. We identified 17 new studies and lateral epicondylitis was the most studied disorder (13 studies). Five studies had a prospective cohort design, eight were cross-sectional and four were case-control. Only one study had no items rated as high RoB. Combined physical exposure indicators (e.g. physical exertion combined with elbow movement) were associated with the occurrence of lateral epicondylitis. No other consistent associations were observed for other physical and psychosocial exposures. These results prevent strong conclusions regarding associations between work-related exposures, and the occurrence of elbow disorders.
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 | 0.007 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".