MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388840437 · doi:10.1016/j.jseint.2023.10.006

A cross-sectional observational study comparing individuals with a symptomatic full-thickness rotator cuff tear with age-matched controls

2023· article· en· W4388840437 on OpenAlexafffund
Marianne Roos, Michaël Bertrand-Charette, Marc-Olivier Dubé, Jean Tittley, Mélanie Brisson, Luc Chau, Jackie L. Whittaker, François Desmeules, Catherine Mercier, Jean‐Sébastien Roy

Bibliographic record

VenueJSES International · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicShoulder Injury and Treatment
Canadian institutionsCentre Intégré Universitaire de Santé et de Services Sociaux du Centre-Sud-de-l'Île-de-MontréalUniversity of British ColumbiaCentre hospitalier universitaire de QuébecResearch CanadaUniversité de MontréalUniversité LavalHôpital Maisonneuve-RosemontCentre for Interdisciplinary Research in Rehabilitation
FundersFonds de Recherche du Québec - SantéMichael Smith Health Research BCArthritis Society
KeywordsMedicineRotator cuffObservational studyShouldersPhysical therapyCross-sectional studyAsymptomaticPsychosocialCapsulitisRange of motionMann–Whitney U testUnivariate analysisInternal medicineSurgeryMultivariate analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background A full-thickness rotator cuff tear (FTRCT) is defined as a complete tear of one of the four rotator cuff muscle tendons (supraspinatus, infraspinatus, subscapularis or teres minor). This condition can lead to pain and reduced function. However, not all FTRCT are symptomatic. A better understanding of the characteristics that lead some individuals with FTRCT to experience pain is fundamental to improve strategies used to manage this condition. This level II descriptive study aimed to explore potential sociodemographic, anatomical, psychosocial, pain sensitivity, biomechanical and neuromuscular variables that may differ between individuals with symptomatic FTRCT and age-matched individuals with asymptomatic shoulders. Methods In this cross-sectional observational study, adults aged 50 to 80 years of age, either with symptomatic FTRCT or no shoulder pain, were recruited via convenience sampling. Participants filled out questionnaires on sociodemographic and psychosocial variables. Then, various tests were performed, including pain pressure threshold, shoulder range of motion, shoulder muscle strength, shoulder ultrasound and radiologic examination, and sensorimotor functions testing. Each variable was compared between groups using univariate analyses (independent t -tests, Mann-Whitney U tests, exact probability Fisher tests). Significance was set at 0.05. Results FTRCT (n = 30) and Control (n = 30) groups were comparable in terms of sex, age, and number of comorbidities. The symptomatic FTRCT group showed a higher proportion of smokers ( P = .026) and more participants indicated consuming alcohol or drugs more than they meant to ( P = .010). The FTRCT group had a significantly higher prevalence of glenohumeral osteophytes (48% vs. 17%; P = .012). Participants in the FTRCT group were significantly more stressed ( P = .04), anxious ( P = .003) and depressed ( P = .002). The FTRCT group also showed significantly higher levels of pain catastrophisation ( P < .001) and sleep disturbance ( P < .001). The FTRCT group showed significantly lower range of motion for flexion ( P < .001), and external rotation at 0° ( P < .001) and 90° ( P < .001) of abduction. Isometric strength in both abduction and external rotation were weaker ( P = .005) for the FTRCT group. Conclusion Sociodemographic, anatomical, psychosocial and biomechanical variables showed statistically significant differences between the FTRCT and Control groups.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.754

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.094
GPT teacher head0.387
Teacher spread0.292 · 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

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJSES InternationalSame topicShoulder Injury and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207