MedialLongitudinal Arch Angle Presents Significant Differences Between Foot Types: A Biplane FluoroscopyStudy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The structure of the medial longitudinal arch (MLA) affects the foot's overall function and its ability to dissipate plantar pressure forces. Previous research on the MLA includes measuring the calcaneal-first metatarsal angle using a static sagittal plane radiograph, a dynamic height-to-length ratio using marker clusters with a multisegment foot model, and a contained angle using single point markers with a multisegment foot model. The objective of this study was to use biplane fluoroscopy to measure a contained MLA angle between foot types: pes planus (low arch), pes cavus (high arch), and normal arch. Fifteen participants completed the study, five from each foot type. Markerless fluoroscopic radiostereometric analysis (fRSA) was used with a three-dimensional model of the foot bones and manually matching those bones to a pair of two-dimensional radiographic images during midstance of gait. Statistically significant differences were found between barefoot arch angles of the normal and pes cavus foot types (p = 0.036), as well as between the pes cavus and pes planus foot types (p = 0.004). Dynamic walking also resulted in a statistically significant finding compared to the static standing trials (p = 0.014). These results support the classification of individuals following a physical assessment by a foot specialist for those with pes cavus and planus foot types. The differences between static and dynamic kinematic measurements were also supported using this novel method.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".