Gait Analysis after Initial Nonoperative Treatment for Clubfeet: Intermediate Term Followup at Age 5
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We conducted gait analysis following initial nonoperative clubfoot treatment to compare lower extremity kinematic (eg, ankle motion) and kinetic (eg, ankle power) characteristics between patients treated as infants with Ponseti casting or French physical therapy. This is a followup report of gait characteristics at age 5 years in patients who had previously been tested at age 2 years. One hundred-twenty five clubfeet in 90 patients (34 feet only Ponseti treatment, 40 only French PT, and 51 feet initial nonoperative treatment followed by surgery) were included. The gait characteristics were compared to those of age-matched normal control subjects. Ankle equinus during gait occurred in 5% of feet treated with the French method and none of those treated by the Ponseti method. Increased stance phase ankle dorsiflexion persisted in 24% of feet treated by the Ponseti method. Intoeing was seen in 1/3 of both the French and Ponseti methods. Ankle push-off power was decreased compared to normal in patients treated by both methods, and even more so in operated feet. The presence or absence of Achilles tenotomy did not affect ankle power. Gait characteristics of feet that did not have surgery and maintained correction were superior to those of operated feet.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it