Metatarsalgia and rheumatoid arthritis--a randomized, single blind, sequential trial comparing 2 types of foot orthoses and supportive shoes.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the effects of semi-rigid and soft orthoses worn in supportive shoes, and supportive shoes worn alone, on metatarsal phalangeal (MTP) joint pain. MTP joint synovitis, and lower extremity function in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. METHODS: Twenty-eight subjects referred to occupational therapy received in random order 3 interventions for 12 week trials, separated by 2 week washouts. A crossover design compared effectiveness of interventions. RESULTS: Twenty-four subjects completed the study. A reduction in mean pain scores from baseline to final visits showed that semi-rigid orthoses had a highly significant effect on pain. Soft orthoses did not show a significant effect on pain from baseline to final visit, nor did shoes worn alone. None of the interventions had a significant effect on synovitis or function. CONCLUSION: Semi-rigid orthoses worn in supportive shoes were an effective treatment for metatarsalgia. Supportive shoes worn alone or worn with soft orthoses did not provide pain relief for metatarsalgia.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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".