Do Individuals With Subacromial Pain Syndrome Show Proprioceptive Deficits?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare, during shoulder proprioceptive testing (kinesthesia, active and passive joint position sense), (1) proprioception acuity between participants with and without subacromial pain syndrome (SPS) and (2) proprioception acuity and pain intensity across various arm and body positions. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. METHODS: Forty participants with SPS and forty asymptomatic participants were included. Proprioceptive testing was performed to assess passive and active joint position sense, as well as kinesthesia, during lateral and medial shoulder rotations using an isokinetic dynamometer. Testing was conducted in 2 positions: sitting with 60° of shoulder elevation in the scapular plane and supine with 90° shoulder abduction. Pain intensity was recorded after each test. RESULTS: The SPS group showed greater errors in passive joint position sense (lateral rotation) in the sitting position, as well as in kinesthesia in the sitting (for both medial and lateral rotations) and supine (for medial rotation) positions. The SPS group had greater errors in the sitting position, while the supine position was reported as more painful during kinesthesia tests for medial and lateral rotations. CONCLUSION: Certain subcategories of shoulder proprioception, such as passive joint position sense and kinesthesia, may be impaired in individuals with SPS. The position of the participant’s arm appeared to influence proprioceptive acuity. JOSPT Open 2025;3(2):1-8. Epub 17 January 2025. doi:10.2519/josptopen.2025.0064
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".