Stability of Lisfranc Joints in Ballet Pointe Position
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Ballerinas develop stress fractures at the second metatarsal base associated with dancing en pointe. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the relative importance of the pointe shoe and the tarsometatarsal ligaments in Lisfranc joint stability en pointe. METHODS: Eleven cadaver feet were dressed with pointe shoes, loaded in foot flat with ligaments intact, and loaded en pointe before and after sequential sectioning of the dorsal, interosseous, and plantar ligaments between the first and second metatarsals and cuneiforms. Relative motion between the first and second metatarsals and cuneiforms was determined radiographically. RESULTS: No significant displacement of the Lisfranc joints occurred when the shod foot with intact ligaments was loaded in the foot flat or en pointe positions. Serial sectioning of the ligaments from dorsal to plantar in the shod foot en pointe demonstrated no change in alignment after the dorsal and interosseous ligaments were cut, but a significant change in alignment between the second metatarsal and second cuneiform was noted after the plantar ligament was cut (p < 0.0001). Removal of the pointe shoe after cutting the ligaments and applying a minimal (1 to 2 kg) load resulted in complete subluxation and diastasis through the first-second intermetatarsal and intercuneiform region. Replacing the shoe improved alignment en pointe with similar loading. CONCLUSIONS: Both the pointe shoe and Lisfranc ligaments are important for Lisfranc region stability in feet en pointe. The plantar ligaments are major stabilizers of the Lisfranc region in the loaded, shod foot en pointe. Selection of a pointe shoe with adequate support may limit susceptibility to stress fracture of the second metatarsal base in ballerinas.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".