Knee and ankle biomechanics with lateral wedges with and without a custom arch support in those with medial knee osteoarthritis and flat feet
Bibliographic record
Abstract
UNLABELLED: This study compared immediate changes in knee and ankle/subtalar biomechanics with lateral wedge orthotics with and without custom arch support in people with knee osteoarthritis and flat feet. Twenty-six participants with radiographic evidence of medial knee osteoarthritis (22 females; age 64.0 years [SD 8.0 years], BMI 27.2 kg/m(2) [4.2]) and flat feet (median foot posture index = + 5) underwent three-dimensional gait analysis for three conditions: Control (no orthotic), lateral wedge, and lateral wedge plus arch support. Condition order was randomized. Outcomes included frontal plane knee and ankle/subtalar biomechanics, and comfort. Compared to the control, lateral wedge and lateral wedge with arch support reduced the knee adduction moment impulse by 8% and 6%, respectively (p < 0.05). However, the lateral wedge resulted in a more everted foot position (4.3 degrees) than lateral wedge plus arch support (3.2 degrees) (p < 0.05). In contrast, lateral wedge plus arch support reduced foot frontal plane excursion compared to other conditions (p < 0.05). Participants self-reported significantly more immediate comfort with lateral wedge plus arch support compared to the control, whereas there was no difference in self-reported comfort between lateral wedge and control. No immediate changes in knee pain were observed in any condition. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Rather than prescribing lateral wedges to all patients with knee osteoarthritis, those who have medial knee osteoarthritis and flat feet may prefer to use the combined orthotic to reduce loads across the knee, and to minimize the risk of foot and ankle symptoms as a consequence of orthotic treatment. © 2016 Orthopaedic Research Society. Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Orthop Res 34:1597-1605, 2016.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".