MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4393979126 · doi:10.1016/j.apergo.2024.104277

Physical and psychosocial work-related exposures and the occurrence of disorders of the shoulder: A systematic review update

2024· review· en· W4393979126 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Annelotte H.C. Versloot, Jennie A. Jackson, Rogier M. van Rijn, Roy G. Elbers, Karen Søgaard, Erin M. Macri, Bart W. Koes, Alex Burdorf, Alessandro Chiarotto, Heike Gerger

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Ergonomics · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicShoulder Injury and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersWorkSafeBC
KeywordsPsychosocialPsycINFOMedicineShouldersMEDLINERotator cuffPhysical therapyShoulder Impingement SyndromeCochrane LibraryTendonitisClinical psychologyMeta-analysisPsychiatrySurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This review is an update of a previous systematic review and assesses the evidence for the association of work-related physical and psychosocial risk factors and specific disorders of the shoulders. Medline, Embase, Web of Science Core Collection, Cochrane Central and PsycINFO were searched and study eligibility and risk of bias assessment was performed by two independent reviewers. A total of 14 new articles were added with the majority focusing on rotator cuff syndrome (RCS) with seven studies. Nine articles reported psychosocial exposures in addition to physical exposures. The strongest evidence was found for the association between elevation, repetition, force and vibration and the occurrence of SIS and tendinosis/tendonitis. Evidence also suggests that psychosocial exposures are associated with the occurrence of RCS and tendinosis/tendonitis. Other findings were inconsistent which prevents drawing strong conclusions.

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: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.132
Threshold uncertainty score0.640

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.302 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations12
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueApplied ErgonomicsSame topicShoulder Injury and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207