The major pain source of rotator cuff‐related shoulder pain: A narrative review on current evidence
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Rotator cuff-related shoulder pain (RCRSP) was proposed to have a complex pain mechanism, but the exact aetiology is still unclear. A recent review summarised the updated research to analyse the traditional concept of shoulder impingement which may not be accurate. Current studies have demonstrated that mechanical factors including a reduction in subacromial space, scapular dyskinesia and different acromial shapes are unlikely directly contributing to RCRSP. AIMS: Since the precise RCRSP pain mechanism remains unclear, the aim of this narrative review is to discuss possible sources of pain contributing to RCRSP according to the mechanisms-based pain classifications. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Research findings on potential mechanical nociceptive factors of RCRSP are conflicting; investigations of neuropathic and central pain mechanisms of RCRSP are limited and inconclusive. Overall, available evidence has indicated moderate to strong correlations between RCRSP and chemical nociceptive sources of pain. CONCLUSION: Results from current research may provide new directions for future studies on the aetiology of RCRSP and its clinical management towards a biochemical view instead of the traditional mechanical hypothesis.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 it