MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391064616 · doi:10.1016/j.physio.2024.01.003

Will my shoulder pain get better? – secondary analysis of data from a multi-arm randomised controlled trial

2024· article· en· W4391064616 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysiotherapy · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicShoulder Injury and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalUniversité de MontréalHôpital Maisonneuve-RosemontCentre for Interdisciplinary Research in Rehabilitation
FundersFonds de Recherche du Québec - SantéRéseau Provincial de Recherche en Adaptation-Réadaptation
KeywordsMedicinePhysical therapyRandomized controlled trialPhysical medicine and rehabilitationSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether higher level or improvements over time in pain self-efficacy (PSE) and expectations of intervention effectiveness lead to better outcomes and whether the intervention used to manage rotator cuff related shoulder pain (RCRSP) impacts PSE and expectations over time. DESIGN: Secondary analysis of data from a randomised controlled trial. PARTICIPANTS: 123 individuals (48 [15] years old; 51% female) with RCRSP. INTERVENTIONS: Participants randomised into one of three 12-weeks interventions (education; education and motor control exercises; education and strengthening exercises). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: QuickDASH and Western Ontario Rotator Cuff Index (WORC) were administered at baseline and 12 weeks. Pain self-efficacy was assessed at 0 and 6 weeks. Patients' expectations regarding intervention effectiveness were assessed before randomisation and after the first and the last intervention sessions. NparLD were used for the analyses. A time effect indicated a significant change in patients' expectations or PSE over time, while a resolution effect indicated a significant difference in patients' expectations or PSE between those whose symptoms resolved and those whose did not. RESULTS: Patients' expectations (-3 to 3) increased over time (0.33/3 [0.19 to 0.77]). Overall expectations were higher for those who experienced symptom resolution based on the WORC (0.19/3 [0.05 to 0.33]). PSE increased over time (5.5/60 [3.6 to 7.4]). Overall PSE was higher for those who experienced symptom resolution based on the WORC (7.0 [3.9 to 10.1]) and the QuickDASH (4.9 [1.7 to 8.2]). CONCLUSION: Clinicians should consider monitoring PSE and patients' expectations as they are important indicators of outcome. CONTRIBUTION OF THE PAPER.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.139
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.382
Teacher spread0.337 · 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