The relationship between rotator cuff disorders and abdominal muscles: Biomechanical and clinical findings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Rotator cuff (RC) disorders are common musculoskeletal conditions causing shoulder pain and functional loss. While abdominal muscles aid in core stabilization and force transmission, their strength, endurance, and thickness in RC disorders remain underexplored. Objectives This study aimed to examine the differences in abdominal muscle performance between individuals with RC pathology and healthy controls and to evaluate the relationship of these parameters with pain, disability and quality of life. Materials and Method This cross-sectional study evaluated 128 individuals (RC group: 64; control group: 64). The strength of the abdominal muscles was evaluated, and the McGill endurance test was performed. Muscle thickness was measured using ultrasound imaging. Shoulder-related pain, symptoms and functionality were assessed with Shoulder Pain and Disability Index and Western Ontario Rotator Cuff Index. Results The RC group exhibited significantly lower abdominal muscle strength and endurance compared to controls ( p < 0.001). A moderate negative correlation was observed between abdominal muscle performance and clinical scores. According to ultrasound evaluations, patients with right-sided shoulder pathology (RSSP) had thinner EO ( p < 0.001) and TrA ( p = 0.016) muscles on the affected side, while left-sided shoulder pathology (LSSP) showed similar reductions in RA ( p = 0.001), EO ( p = 0.012), and TrA ( p = 0.006) thickness. The RC group showed significantly greater percentage asymmetry in RA muscle thickness compared with controls ( p = 0.02), while no statistically significant differences were found for EO, IO, or TrA muscles. Conclusion This study demonstrates that decreased abdominal muscle function and thickness are associated with RC disorders. We emphasize that core stability exercises should be included in rotator cuff rehabilitation.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".