MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4318777791 · doi:10.26603/001c.65900

Bodyblade™ Training in Athletes with Traumatic Anterior Shoulder Instability

2023· article· en· W4318777791 on OpenAlexaffabout
Víctor Pulido Capurro, Brent A. Alvar, David G. Behm

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Sports Physical Therapy · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicShoulder Injury and Treatment
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAthletesPhysical therapyAnalysis of varianceRandomized controlled trialRehabilitationRepeated measures designTest (biology)Internal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background The Bodyblade™ has the potential of enhancing conservative management of Traumatic Anterior Shoulder Instability (TASI). Purpose The purpose of this study was to compare three different protocols: Traditional, Bodyblade™, and Mixed (Traditional & Bodyblade™) for shoulder rehabilitation on athletes with TASI. Study Design Randomized-controlled longitudinal training study. Methods Thirty-seven athletes (age = 19.9±2.0 years) were allocated into Traditional, Bodyblade™, and Mixed (Traditional/Bodyblade™) training groups (3×week for 8-weeks). The traditional group used resistance bands (10-15 repetitions). The Bodyblade™ group transitioned from classic to the pro model (30-60-s repetitions). The mixed group converted from the traditional (weeks 1-4) to the Bodyblade™ (weeks 5-8) protocol. Western Ontario Shoulder Index (WOSI) and the UQYBT were evaluated at baseline, mid-test, post-test, and at a three-month follow-up. A repeated-measures ANOVA design evaluated within and between-group differences. Results All three groups significantly (p=0.001, eta 2 : 0.496) exceeded WOSI baseline scores (at all timepoints) with training (Traditional: 45.6%, 59.4%, and 59.7%, Bodyblade™: 26.6%, 56.5%, and 58.4%, Mixed: 35.9%, 43.3% and 50.4% respectively). Additionally, there was a significant (p=0.001, eta 2 : 0.607) effect for time with mid-test, post-test and follow-up exceeding baseline scores by 35.2%, 53.2% and 43.7%, respectively. The Traditional and Bodyblade™ groups (p=0.049, eta 2 : 0.130) exceeded the Mixed group UQYBT at post-test (8.4%) and at three-month follow-up (19.6%). A main effect (p=0.03, eta 2 : 0.241) for time indicated that WOSI mid-test, post-test and follow-up exceeded the baseline scores by 4.3%, 6.3% and 5.3%. Conclusions All three training groups improved their scores on the WOSI. The Traditional and Bodyblade™ groups demonstrated significant improvements in UQYBT inferolateral reach scores at post-test and three-month follow-up compared to the Mixed group. These findings could lend further credibility to the role of the Bodyblade as an early to intermediate rehabilitation tool. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE 3

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 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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.743
Threshold uncertainty score0.348

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.362
Teacher spread0.310 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Sports Physical TherapySame topicShoulder Injury and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207