The influence of foot orthoses on foot mobility magnitude and arch height index in adults with flexible flat feet
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Flexible flat foot is described as a reduction in the height of the medial longitudinal arch and may occur from abnormal foot pronation. A foot orthosis is thought to modify and control excessive pronation and improve arch height. OBJECTIVE: To compare the immediate effect of three types of orthoses on foot mobility and the arch height index in subjects with flexible flat feet. STUDY DESIGN: A quasi-experimental study. METHOD: The dorsal arch height, midfoot width, foot mobility and arch height index were assessed in 20 participants with flexible flat feet (mean age = 23.2 ± 3 years) for three different foot orthosis conditions: soft, semi-rigid and rigid University of California Biomechanics Laboratory (UCBL). RESULTS: Maximum midfoot width at 90% with arch mobility in the coronal plane was shown in the semi-rigid orthosis condition. The semi-rigid orthosis resulted in the highest mean foot mobility in 90% of weight bearing, and the rigid orthosis (UCBL) had the lowest mean foot mobility. The soft orthosis resulted in foot mobility between that of the rigid and the semi-rigid orthosis. UCBL orthosis showed the highest arch height index, and the semi-rigid orthosis showed the lowest mean arch height index. CONCLUSION: Due to its rigid structure and long medial-lateral walls, the UCBL orthosis appears to limit foot mobility. Therefore, it is necessary to make an orthosis that facilitates foot mobility in the normal range of the foot arch. Future studies should address the dynamic mobility of the foot with using various types of foot orthoses. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Although there are many studies focussed on flat foot and the use of foot orthoses, the mechanism of action is still unclear. This study explored foot mobility and the influence of foot orthoses and showed that a more rigid foot orthosis should be selected based on foot mobility.
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".