The effect of loading conditions on stress in the barefooted heel pad.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: High internal stress is considered to be a possible cause of heel-pad problems. External biomechanical measurements are used to attempt to understand the causes of heel pain. However, internal stress cannot be measured experimentally. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to quantify the relationship between magnitude of force, time to peak force, and sole angle with internal stresses in the heel using a finite element model. METHODS: Computer tomography (CT) was used to create a nonlinear time-dependent three-dimensional finite element model of the heel pad. The material model was based on previously reported force-displacement data derived from in vitro experiments. Although it was not possible to compare internal calculations of stress with experimental data, good agreement was found for external plantar pressures and strains when compared with in vivo values. Internal stresses and external plantar pressures were then investigated for different forces, loading rates (i.e., time to peak force), and angles of foot inclination in the sagittal plane (i.e., sole angle). RESULTS: The results of the model indicate that compressive stress is localized in the region inferior to the calcaneal tuberosity. Peak internal compressive stress was greater than external plantar pressure. Increasing the loading rate (i.e., reducing the time to peak force) caused plantar pressure to increase to a greater extent than internal stress. The general levels of stress were higher when the heel was loaded in an inclined position (i.e., greater sole angle). CONCLUSION: The finite element technique provides a useful step in bridging the gap between external measures and internal mechanics of the heel pad. A combined kinematic, kinetic, and modeling approach may be required when attempting to identify the biomechanical source of heel 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".