Effects of Foot Orthoses on Quality of Life for Individuals With Patellofemoral Pain Syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: Repeated-measures analysis of intervention. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effects of foot orthoses on quality of life for individuals with patellofemoral pain who demonstrate excessive foot pronation. BACKGROUND: Foot orthoses are a common intervention for patients with patellofemoral pain. Limited information is available, however, regarding the effects of foot orthoses on quality of life for these patients. METHODS AND MEASURES: Sixteen subjects with patellofemoral pain who also exhibited signs of excessive foot pronation were studied. Subjects underwent a 2-week period of baseline study followed by custom foot orthotic intervention. The Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) was administered to subjects at the time of screening, just prior to foot orthotic intervention, and at 2 weeks and 3 months following foot orthotic intervention. RESULTS: Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed-rank test results indicated statistically significant improvements in the pain and stiffness subscales 2 weeks following the start of foot orthotic intervention. All WOMAC subscale scores were significantly improved at 3 months compared with preintervention measurements. CONCLUSIONS: Custom-fitted foot orthoses may improve patellofemoral pain symptoms for patients who demonstrate excessive foot pronation.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".