The Effect of Shoe Design and Custom Foot Orthotic Intervention on Lower Extremity Dynamics in Female Runners
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To date there are a number of conflicting opinions as to the ideal shoe-orthotic combination for female runners who wear orthoses that are moderately posted in the rear foot. The wrong shoe-orthotic combination could have implications for sustaining running injury along the kinetic chain. PURPOSE: To determine whether a neutral shoe or motion control shoe is more appropriate for female runners who wear foot orthoses. METHODS: Fifteen female runners who wear foot orthoses with 3° of rearfoot posting ran on a treadmill at a self-selected speed in a motion control (M/C) shoe and a neutral (N) shoe, both with (ORTH) and without (SHOD) orthoses. A goniometer was placed on the heel counter of the right rearfoot and the right lower limb to collect frontal plane rear foot motion data and a goniometer was placed on the lateral aspect of the right knee to collect sagittal plane knee motion data. The data from ten stance phases were averaged for each subject; vector coding was used to analyze the variability of intra-limb coordination between the rearfoot and knee for each shoe-orthotic combination. Significance was achieved if p<0.05. RESUITS: In the SHOD condition, there was a statistically significant difference between the two shoes over the entire stance phase and between 10% and 30% of stance phase, with the M/C trial exhibiting greater intra-limb coordination variability than the N shoe. With the ORTH condition, there was a statistically significant difference between the two shoes from 0–40% of stance and 31–60% of stance with the N trial exhibiting greater intra-limb coordination variability. CONCLUSION: If increased intra-limb coordination variability indeed is related to a reduced propensity for sustaining an overuse injury, as has been found by previous research, then our research has shown that when running with moderately posted foot orthoses, a neutral shoe may be more appropriate. If moderately posted foot orthoses are required, but are not worn while running, a motion control shoe may be more appropriate than a neutral shoe.
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) | 0.003 | 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".