Ability of Foot Care Professionals to Cast Feet Using the Nonweightbearing Plaster and the Gait-Referenced Foam Casting Techniques
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We examined the ability of foot care professionals to consistently capture the forefoot-to-rearfoot angular relationship of a single-cast foot. METHODS: Eleven Canadian certified pedorthists each cast a single foot twice using the plaster of Paris and foam box techniques. Three independent raters subsequently measured the resultant casts. Statistical analysis of the data provided generalizability coefficient estimates (rho(2)) of the intracaster, intercaster, and rater reliabilities. RESULTS: Intracaster reliabilities were excellent when the plaster and foam box techniques were used (rho(2) = 0.831 and 0.939, respectively). The casters were more intrareliable when foam was used (F = 2.755, P = .003). Intercaster reliabilities were poor for both techniques (rho(2) = 0.410 and 0.425). Although, intrarater reliability was excellent (rho(2) = 0.882), interrater reliability was poor (rho(2) = 0.418). CONCLUSION: Although plaster of Paris casting is widely perceived by the foot care community as the gold standard, other casting techniques may prove to be equally reliable.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".