Prosthesis versus exercise for rotator cuff tear arthropathy – protocol of a randomised controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty is a well-established treatment for patients with rotator cuff tear arthropathy. The outcome after reverse total shoulder arthroplasty has been investigated in several studies and national registries. However, the treatment has not been compared to non-surgical treatment. The primary aim of this trial is to investigate whether reverse total shoulder arthroplasty is superior to exercise in patients with rotator cuff tear arthropathy who are eligible for reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. METHODS: In this Nordic multicentre, randomised, controlled clinical trial, 102 patients with rotator cuff tear arthropathy who are eligible for reverse total shoulder arthroplasty will be allocated (1:1) to either reverse total shoulder arthroplasty followed by usual care or to an exercise intervention. The exercise intervention comprises 12 weeks of exercise with one weekly physiotherapist-supervised session and two home-based exercises. The primary outcome is the total Western Ontario Osteoarthritis of the Shoulder index score at a 12-month follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: The ongoing randomised controlled trial will provide insights into treatment decisions for patients with rotator cuff tear arthropathy. FUNDING: This study is funded by Aarhus University, the Health Research Foundation of the Central Denmark Region, the Danish Rheumatism Association, the Association of Danish Physiotherapists, the Health Foundation (Helsefonden), the Hartmann's Foundation and the Emil Hertz Foundation in Denmark. CLINICALTRIALS: gov ID: NCT04864158.
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 | 0.019 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.051 | 0.007 |
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".