Bilateral Rearfoot Asymmetry and Anterior Knee Pain Syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: Single-session observational study. OBJECTIVES: To examine the magnitude and extent of asymmetry between right and left rearfoot angles in individuals who are asymptomatic versus symptomatic for anterior knee pain. BACKGROUND: Asymmetry in lower limb measures has been linked to the occurrence of knee pathologies, yet the practice of deriving unilateral rather than bilateral data and thereafter averaging the findings may play a role in obscuring the true nature of the rearfoot angle-knee pain relationship. METHODS AND MEASURES: A convenience sample of participants was recruited from the local university and business communities and a university-affiliated physiotherapy clinic. Eighty-on young adult males and females volunteered to participate in this study. Following an extensive screening process, including mandatory exclusion for a previous history of lower limb dysfunction or injury, data were collected from 75 individuals classified as asymptomatic (n = 50), unilaterally symptomatic (n = 11), or bilaterally symptomatic (n = 14) for anterior knee pain. Right and left rearfoot angles were goniometrically measured under static, weight-bearing conditions. RESULTS: No significant differences in mean right and left rearfoot angles by group or limb were observed. However, these mean values did not always reflect the true variation of data within the sample. Fifty-six percent of the individuals studied demonstrated a minimum of 4 degrees bilateral rearfoot angle difference, while for 20% of the sample this difference exceeded 7 degrees. Only a we yet statistically significant correlation existed between right and left rearfoot angles (r = 0.31, P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Rearfoot angles in weight bearing are not bilaterally symmetric, and the magnitude and direction of the observed asymmetry does not appear to be indicative of whether an individual is asymptomatic or symptomatic for anterior knee pain.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".