Baropodometric analyses of patients before and after bariatric surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the vertical component of the ground reaction force, plantar pressure, contact area of the feet and double-support time using static and dynamic (gait) baropodometry before and after bariatric surgery. METHODS: Sixteen individuals with a body mass index of between 35 and 55 were evaluated before and after bariatric surgery. Thirteen patients (81.3%) were female and three (18.8%) male and their average age was 46±10 (21-60) years. An FSCAN system (version 3848) was used for baropodometric analyses (1 km/h and 3 km/h). The peak plantar pressure and ground reaction force were measured for the rear foot and forefoot. The double-support time and foot contact area were measured during gait. RESULTS: There were reductions in the ground reaction force in the forefoot and rear foot and in the foot contact area in all evaluations and of the double-support time at 3 km/h, as well as a significant reduction in the body mass index at six months post-surgery. The peak pressure did not vary at 1 km/h and at 3 km/h, reductions in peak pressure were observed in the left and right rear feet and left forefoot. CONCLUSIONS: Weight loss after bariatric surgery resulted in decreases in the ground reaction force and contact area of the foot. Plantar pressure was decreased at 3 km/h, especially in the forefoot. There was an increase in rhythm because of a reduction in the double-support time at 3 km/h.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".