Association between Foot Posture Index and Ankle Sprain in Indoor Football Players
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p><strong>Objective</strong><strong>: </strong>This study investigated the relationship between foot type and ankle sprain incidence.</p><p><strong>Method</strong><strong>: </strong>In a prospective cohort study using the FPI, 68 adult male and female indoor football (Futsal) players were measured and their feet were classified according to foot posture index (FPI) as neutral, supinated and pronated. They were followed over 6 month as a one competition season and at the end, any injuries at the ankle during this period were detected.</p><p><strong>Result</strong><strong>: </strong>There was no significant association between FPI score (considering the total FPI score and its six components) and occurrence of ankle sprain. Also, no association was existed between gender, age, height, weight, BMI, duration of professional exercise, dominant foot and occurrence of ankle sprain. In this study, the history of previous ankle sprain was the only significant predictor of the occurrence of ankle sprain in the follow-up period. Participants with the positive history of previous ankle sprain were at higher risk of developing new ankle sprain (OR=6.02, 95% CI: (1.93, 18.84), p=0.002).</p><p><strong>Conclusion</strong><strong>: </strong>There was no significant association between FPI score and occurrence of ankle sprain.<strong></strong></p><p><strong>Limitation: </strong>there was scarce of supinated foot in the study so evaluation of relationship between supinated feet and ankle sprain was not applicable.</p>
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".