Standardizing Foot-Type Classification Using Arch Index Values
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The lack of a reliable classification standard for foot type makes drawing conclusions from existing research and clinical decisions difficult, since different foot types may move and respond to treatment differently. The purpose of this study was to determine interrater agreement for foot-type classification based on photo-box-derived arch index values. METHOD: For this correlational study with two raters, a sample of 11 healthy volunteers with normal to obese body mass indices was recruited from both a community weight-loss programme and a programme in physical therapy. Arch index was calculated using AutoCAD software from footprint photographs obtained via mirrored photo-box. Classification as high-arched, normal, or low-arched foot type was based on arch index values. Reliability of the arch index was determined with intra-class correlations; agreement on foot-type classification was determined using quadratic weighted kappa (κw). RESULTS: Average arch index was 0.215 for one tester and 0.219 for the second tester, with an overall range of 0.017 to 0.370. Both testers classified 6 feet as low-arched, 9 feet as normal, and 7 feet as high-arched. Interrater reliability for the arch index was ICC=0.90; interrater agreement for foot-type classification was κw=0.923. CONCLUSIONS: Classification of foot type based on arch index values derived from plantar footprint photographs obtained via mirrored photo-box showed excellent reliability in people with varying BMI. Foot-type classification may help clinicians and researchers subdivide sample populations to better differentiate mobility, gait, or treatment effects among foot types.
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 | 0.021 | 0.050 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".