The Correlation between Pes Planus and Anterior Knee or Intermittent Low Back Pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Anterior knee pain and intermittent low back pain are among the most common orthopedic complaints of adolescents. However, little is known about pes planus and its relative risk for these symptoms. The goal of the study was to track the prevalence of pes planus in adolescents, and examine its associated risk to anterior knee pain and intermittent low back pain, respectively. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective study of 97,279 military recruits presenting to recruitment centers was conducted. Pes planus was graded by an orthopedist as mild, moderate or severe according to the flattening of the plantar arch and its rigidity to standing on one's toes. Anterior knee pain was diagnosed when symptoms were attributed to the patellofemoral joint. Intermittent low back pain was diagnosed when there was pain but neither abnormal clinical nor radiographic findings. RESULTS: Pes planus was present in 15,698 (16%) individuals. 11,549 (74%), 3,341 (21%) and 808 (5%) were diagnosed as having mild, moderate and severe pes planus, respectively. The prevalence of intermittent low back pain was 5% in both the control and mild pes planus groups, while it was 10% in the moderate and severe pes planus groups (p < 0.0001). The prevalence of anterior knee pain was 4% in both the control and mild pes planus groups, while it was 7% in the moderate and severe pes planus groups (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Moderate and severe pes planus was associated with nearly double the rate of anterior knee pain and intermittent low back pain, while mild pes planus was associated with no higher rate for these problems. Prophylactic measures may be helpful only in those adolescents with moderate and severe pes planus.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".