Biomechanical and Anatomic Factors Associated with a History of Plantar Fasciitis in Female Runners
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare selected structural and biomechanical factors between female runners with a history of plantar fasciitis and healthy control subjects. DESIGN: Cross-sectional. SETTING: University of Delaware Motion Analysis Laboratory, Newark, Delaware; and University of Massachusetts Biomechanics Laboratory, Amherst, Massachusetts. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-five female runners with a history of plantar fasciitis were recruited for this study. A group of 25 age- and mileage-matched runners with no history of plantar fasciitis served as control subjects. INTERVENTIONS: The independent variable was whether or not subjects had a history of plantar fasciitis. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Subjects ran overground while kinematic and kinetic data were recorded using a motion capture system and force plate. Rearfoot kinematic variables of interest included peak dorsiflexion, peak eversion, time to peak eversion along with eversion excursion. Vertical ground reaction force variables included impact peak and the maximum instantaneous load rate. Structural measures were taken for calcaneal valgus and arch index during standing and passive ankle dorsiflexion range of motion. RESULTS: A significantly greater maximum instantaneous load rate was found in the plantar fasciitis group along with an increased ankle dorsiflexion range of motion compared with the control group. The plantar fasciitis group had a lower arch index compared with control subjects, but calcaneal valgus was similar between groups. No differences in rearfoot kinematics were found between groups. CONCLUSION: These data indicate that a history of plantar fasciitis in runners may be associated with greater vertical ground reaction force load rates and a lower medial longitudinal arch of the foot.
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 | 0.001 | 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".