Investigating the reliability and validity of subacromial space measurements using ultrasound and MRI
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: While ultrasound (US) measures of the subacromial space (SAS) have demonstrated excellent reliability, measurements are typically captured by experts with extensive ultrasound experience. Further, the agreement between US measured SAS width and other imaging modalities has not been explored. This research evaluated the agreement between SAS measures captured by novice and expert raters and between US and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). This study also evaluated the effect of US transducer tilt on measured SAS. METHODS: Nine men and nine women participated in this study. US images were captured by a novice and expert with the participant in both seated and supine positions. An inclinometer was fixed to the US probe to measure transducer tilt. SAS width was measured in real time from freeze framed images. MRI images were captured, and the humerus and acromion manually segmented. The SAS width was measured using a custom algorithm. RESULTS: Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) between novice and expert raters were 0.74 and 0.63 for seated and supine positions, respectively. Intra-rater agreement was high for both novice (ICC = 0.83-0.84) and expert (ICC ≥ 0.94) raters. Agreement between US and MRI was poor (ICC = 0.21-0.49) but linearly related. CONCLUSIONS: Moderate agreement between novice and expert raters was demonstrated, while the agreement between US and MRI was poor. High intra-rater reliability within each rater suggests that US measures of the SAS may be completed by a novice with introductory training.
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 | 0.033 | 0.084 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".