Fat Mass Is Associated with Foot Pain in Men: The Geelong Osteoporosis Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Foot pain is a common complaint in adults. Evidence suggests that body composition is involved in the development of foot pain. However, whether this is the case in men remains unclear because previous studies mainly examined women. The aim of this cross-sectional study was to determine the relationship between body composition and foot pain in men while accounting for important risk factors. METHODS: Among 978 men (median age 60 yrs, range 24-98) from the Geelong Osteoporosis Study who participated in a followup study in 2006 to 2011, 796 provided responses to questions on health status and foot pain. Foot pain was determined using the Manchester Foot Pain and Disability Index, and body composition was measured using dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry. RESULTS: Of the 796 respondents, 177 (22%) had foot pain. Risk factors for foot pain were age (OR 1.03, 95% CI 1.02-1.04), self-reported depression (OR 2.05, 95% CI 1.30-3.20), decreased mobility (OR 1.54, 95% CI 1.05-2.24), and lower education (OR 1.47, 95% CI 1.03-2.09). Foot pain was associated with body mass index (OR 1.05, 95% CI 1.00-1.10), fat mass (OR 1.02, 95% CI 1.03-1.05), and fat mass index (OR 1.08, 95% CI 1.01-1.15), but not fat-free mass (OR 1.01, 95% CI 0.98-1.04) or fat-free mass index (OR 1.05, 95% CI 0.95-1.15) after appropriate adjustments were made. CONCLUSION: Fat mass is associated with foot pain in men. These findings complement those in studies that have mainly examined women, and provide further evidence for the relationship between obesity and foot pain.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".