The Relationship Among Foot Posture, Core and Lower Extremity Muscle Function, and Postural Stability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT: Identification of impaired balance as a risk factor for lower extremity injury regardless of injury history has led to subsequent investigation of variables that may adversely affect balance in healthy individuals. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the relationship among core and lower extremity muscle function, foot posture, and balance. DESIGN: Descriptive laboratory study. SETTING: Musculoskeletal injury biomechanics laboratory. PATIENTS OR OTHER PARTICIPANTS: A total of 108 individuals (40 men, 68 women; age = 22.8 ± 4.7 years, height = 168.5 ± 10.4 cm, mass = 69.9 ± 13.3 kg) participated in the study. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Core endurance was assessed during 1 time-to-failure trial, and isometric hip and ankle strength were assessed using a handheld dynamometer and isokinetic dynamometer, respectively. Foot structure was quantified using the digital photographic measurement method. Single-limb-stance time to boundary was assessed using a force plate during an eyes-closed condition. Hierarchical multiple regression analyses were performed to predict balance using lower extremity strength, foot posture, and core endurance. RESULTS: Foot posture (β = -0.22, P = .03) and ankle-inversion strength (β = -0.29, P = .006) predicted mediolateral balance. Increasing arch posture and ankle-inversion strength were associated with decreased mediolateral single-limb-stance balance. CONCLUSIONS: Increasing arch height was associated with decreased mediolateral control of single-limb stance. The relationship between time to boundary and injury risk, however, has not been explored. Therefore, the relationship between increasing arch height and injury due to postural instability cannot be determined from this study. If authors of future prospective studies identify a relationship between decreased time to boundary and increased injury risk, foot structure may be an important variable to assess during preparticipation physical examinations. The relationship between increasing ankle-inversion strength and decreased balance may require additional study to further elucidate the relationship between ankle strength and balance.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".