Effects of orthotic intervention during running among individuals with functional flatfoot
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Foot orthotics are commonly prescribed to runners with functional flatfoot (FFF) with the goal of restoring the medial arch of the foot. In addition, treadmills are typically used by both clinicians and researchers in order to measure the lower extremity kinematics associated with running. However the mechanism of orthotic intervention as well as the accuracy of treadmills in representing overground running remains controversial within the literature.\nThis thesis first compared the lower extremity kinematics between treadmill and overground running among individuals with a subtalar neutral foot type. The results indicated no significant differences with respect to rate of rearfoot angle, maximum internal tibial rotation angle and rate of internal tibial rotation between the two running surfaces. However, maximum rearfoot angle was significantly higher during treadmill running. In addition, this thesis compared the lower extremity kinematics during running between individuals with subtalar neutral and FFF foot types. The results indicated similar lower extremity kinematics during running between groups as no significant differences were found between maximum rearfoot angle, rate of rearfoot angle or rate of internal tibial rotation. However, the subtalar neutral group demonstrated significantly higher maximum internal tibial rotation angles when compared to the FFF group. Finally, this thesis investigated the effects of orthotic intervention on the lower extremity kinematics during running among individuals with FFF. The results suggest that orthotics significantly decrease maximum rearfoot angle and maximum internal tibial rotation angle during running among this population. However, rate of rearfoot angle and rate of internal tibial rotation were not affected.\nThese findings suggest that treadmills do accurately represent the lower extremity kinematics associated with overground running, however if clinical decisions are dependent on small changes in maximum rearfoot angle then careful interpretation should be employed when using treadmills. Individuals with FFF did not demonstrate the expected increase in lower extremity kinematics therefore further research is required to better understand the mechanism of running injury among this population. In addition, orthotic intervention may have a mechanical effect on the motion of the lower extremity however the extent and applicability of this effect should be further examined.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".