Biomechanical and Clinical Factors Related to Stage I Posterior Tibial Tendon Dysfunction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: Case control. OBJECTIVES: To investigate differences in arch height, ankle muscle strength, and biomechanical factors in individuals with stage I posterior tibial tendon dysfunction (PTTD) in comparison to healthy individuals. BACKGROUND: PTTD is a progressive condition, so early recognition and treatment are essential to help delay or reverse the progression. However, no previous studies have investigated stage I PTTD, and no single study has measured static anatomical structure, muscle strength, and gait mechanics in this population. METHODS: Twelve individuals with stage I PTTD and 12 healthy, age- and gender-matched control subjects, who were engaged in running-related activities, participated in this study. Measurements of arch height index, maximum voluntary ankle invertor muscle strength, and 3-dimensional rearfoot and medial longitudinal arch kinematics during walking were obtained. RESULTS: The runners with PTTD demonstrated significantly lower seated arch height index (P = .02) and greater (P = .03) and prolonged (P = .05) peak rearfoot eversion angle during gait, compared to the healthy runners. No differences were found in standing arch height index values (P = .28), arch rigidity index (P = .06), ankle invertor strength (P = .49), or peak medial longitudinal arch values (P = .49) between groups. CONCLUSION: The increased foot pronation is hypothesized to place greater strain on the posterior tibialis muscle, which may partially explain the progressive nature of this condition.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".