Consistent Immediate Effects of Foot Orthoses on Comfort and Lower Extremity Kinematics, Kinetics, and Muscle Activity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In order to accommodate patients to new foot orthoses over time, two steps are required: The first is to obtain a baseline reading of the immediate effects across several weeks to ensure consistency. The second step is to look at changes with progressively longer wear periods similar to what occurs in general practice. This study addressed the first step. The purpose of this study was to determine whether the baseline reading of the immediate effects of foot orthoses on comfort and lower extremity kinematics, kinetics, and muscle activity is consistent between days. Participants were 21 recreational runners who volunteered for the study. Three orthotic conditions (posting, custom-molding, posting and custom-molding) were compared to a control (flat) insert. Lower extremity kinematic, kinetic, and EMG data were collected for 108 trials per participant and condition in 9 sessions for each person for running at 4 m/s. Comfort for all orthotic conditions was assessed in each session using a visual analog scale. Statistically significant session effects were detected using repeated-measures ANOVA (α = .05). Three of the 93 variables had a significant session effect. A significant interaction between orthotic condition and session was observed for 6 of the 93 variables. The results of this study showed that the effects of foot orthoses on comfort, lower extremity kinematics, kinetics, and muscle activity are consistent across a 3-week period when the wear time for each condition is restricted. Thus, foot orthoses lead to immediate changes in comfort, kinematics, kinetics, and muscle activity with limited use. These immediate effects of foot orthoses on comfort, kinematics, kinetics, and muscle activity are consistent between days.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".