Plantar Tendons of the Foot: MR Imaging and US
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Tendon disorders along the plantar aspect of the foot may lead to significant symptoms but are often clinically misdiagnosed. Familiarity with the normal anatomy of the plantar tendons and its appearance at magnetic resonance (MR) imaging and ultrasonography (US) is essential for recognizing plantar tendon disorders. At MR imaging, the course of the plantar tendons is optimally visualized with dedicated imaging of the midfoot and forefoot. This imaging should include short-axis images obtained perpendicular to the long axis of the metatarsal shafts, which allows true cross-sectional evaluation of the plantar tendons. Normal plantar tendons appear as low-signal-intensity structures with all MR sequences. At US, accurate evaluation of the tendons requires that the ultrasound beam be perpendicular to the tendon. The normal tendon appears as a compact linear band of echogenic tissue that contains a fine, mixed hypoechoic and hyperechoic internal fibrillar pattern. Tendon injuries can be grouped into six major categories: tendinosis, peritendinosis, tenosynovitis, entrapment, rupture, and instability (subluxation or dislocation) and can be well assessed with both MR imaging and US. The radiologist plays an important role in the diagnosis of plantar tendon disorders, and recognizing their imaging appearances at MR imaging and US is essential.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".