Bilateral Measurement of Resting Calcaneal Stance Position and Tibial Varum Using Digital Photography and Standardized Positioning Protocols
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Excessive calcaneal eversion and tibial varum are thought to predispose individuals to overuse injuries such as patellofemoral pain, yet investigations of this relationship have yielded equivocal results. Differences in the methods used, including stance position, may contribute to the observed differences. METHODS: Forty-six young adults (29 asymptomatic control patients and 17 patients with patellofemoral pain syndrome) participated. Resting calcaneal stance position and tibial varum were measured using a digital photographic-goniometric method while participants adopted three upright, weightbearing stance positions (self-selected, Romberg, and single-limb right or left). Data were collapsed and analyzed by group (asymptomatic, symptomatic) or limb status (uninjured, injured), stance, and limb (right, left). RESULTS: Mean resting calcaneal stance position and tibial varum values differed significantly among the three stance conditions, whereas differences between groups, limb status, and limb were not observed. Pearson product moment correlations revealed no relationship between measures derived under the differing stance conditions (r = -0.08 to -0.37, P > .05) and only weak to moderate relationships in resting calcaneal stance position and tibial varum measures between the right and left limbs (r = 0.37 to 0.71, P < .01). CONCLUSIONS: If differences in reported values for resting calcaneal stance position and tibial varum in an individual, between groups, or from study to study are to be interpreted as true differences or as products of the measurement method used, a standardized measurement method must be established and methods must be accurately reported.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".