Relationship Between the Subtalar Joint Inclination Angle and the Location of Lower-Extremity Injuries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study hypothesized that individuals who have a history of knee pain during repetitive weightbearing activities have a higher subtalar joint inclination angle than those with a history of foot pain. Study participants were selected on the basis of results of a written questionnaire that asked about the site and cause of injury and pain frequency and intensity. Pain items were graded on a 7-point Likert scale. Subjects were mainly young (18 to 32 years of age), healthy university students who had a history of knee pain (knee group) or foot pain (foot group) during weightbearing activity. Both foot and lower-leg kinematic data were used to estimate the magnitude of each participant's subtalar joint inclination angle. These data were obtained while participants performed a series of open- and closed-kinetic-chain motions. The subtalar joint inclination angle was significantly greater for the knee group than for the foot group. The results of this study support the hypothesis that a higher subtalar joint inclination angle may predispose an individual to knee pain, and a lower subtalar joint inclination angle to foot pain.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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 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".